Are conservatives fit to govern(a hypothetical question not a core belief).

MSI Magus

MSI Magus

CAGiversary!
Feedback
83 (100%)
Recently more and more studies have come out that suggest that conservatives and liberals are made not by their philosophy, but instead by science. Our DNA and the size of various sections of our brain may determine from birth how we see the world around us. Time and time again these studies show the conservative brain is larger in the area that controls emotions such as fear and psychologists find that conservatives are more motivated by things like loyalty and tradition. Meanwhile the same results show that the part of the brain that controls things like critical thinking is larger in liberals and the psychological results point to the importance of things like justice.

Now I am not raising this to simply be a smart ass and insult conservatives but instead as a legitimate question. If scientists and psychologists keep running these tests and in the years to come keep finding these same results, it does raise the legitimate question....are conservatives fit to govern? If by nature conservatives are programed to make knee jerk reactions and simply follow what they view to be established societal norms it means we will get in to far more wars as well as economical and social issues. If someone governs out of fear can we truly trust them to do what is right for the people?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you're painting with too broad a brush here. There are plenty of conservatives who, despite the fact that I disagree with them on most everything, I believe genuinely care about doing the right thing.

[quote name='MSI Magus']are conservatives fit to govern?

If someone governs out of fear can we truly trust them to do what is right for the people?[/QUOTE]

If we're just talking about Palin/Bachmann type nutjobs then the short answer to both of these questions is probably "no", but the answer to the question posed in your thread title is still "yes".

Even if conservatives are generally less intelligent, more prone to irrational dogma, and less inclined towards compassion that's not enough of a reason to prohibit them from government service. Even Michelle Bachmann.
 
In a democracy you don't prohibit anyone who gets elected from governing. End of story. If they get the votes legitimately, then they can govern regardless of how much some of us may dislike some of them.
 
[quote name='bvharris']I think you're painting with too broad a brush here. There are plenty of conservatives who, despite the fact that I disagree with them on most everything, I believe genuinely care about doing the right thing.



If we're just talking about Palin/Bachmann type nutjobs then the short answer to both of these questions is probably "no", but the answer to the question posed in your thread title is still "yes".

Even if conservatives are generally less intelligent, more prone to irrational dogma, and less inclined towards compassion that's not enough of a reason to prohibit them from government service. Even Michelle Bachmann.[/QUOTE]

I was never saying I do or do not believe this should be the case. Instead I am trying to come at this from a purely intellectual stand point. If it can be shown that one type of person is naturally ruled by fear, can they be trusted to govern? If you think about it for years and years conservatives have claimed liberals are not fit to govern because they are too cowardly to handle war or other tough issues. Now it turns out that the reverse may be the truth, that conservatives are scared shitless and react in knee jerk ways as a result. It seems fair to make the same statement they once made, but instead I am choosing to present it as a question.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Instead I am trying to come at this from a purely intellectual stand point.[/QUOTE]

From a purely intellectual standpoint I will never fully understand why the vast majority of people who are conservative are that way. I have said in the past that the Republican party in the US is the party of the very rich and the very stupid. The ability to convince people to vote in a manner which is likely contrary to their own economic self-interest has always been striking to me. Even if I understand the factors involved (and I do) it will never truly seek to baffle me. I suppose the theory you've provided is as good a bet as any.

As to the broader question about fitness to govern, I doubt the divide between liberals and conservatives is black and white enough that it could be used as any real sort of barometer, even in a hypothetical society where we give our elected representatives brainscans to see if they're capable of critical thought (which I'd be all for, if only for the entertainment value of it).
 
Banning conservatives from government would make them slaves. Every citizen has the right to vote for the person that they feel would best represent them.

You're using the eugenic argument that there is a superior race or type of human. The Nazis used it to exclude Jews, gays, Roma, and anyone else they felt didn't fit their exacting standards.
 
I think the contrast is necessary to delay the kind of robust nonsense that will eventually show up. Every now and then you need a Gov Scott Walker to come along and do something stupid to show the rest of the folks that (R) ideology won't work for everyone (anyone?) and the pendulum swings the other way.

The real problem nowadays is that debate has been reduced to soundbytes and commentators outside of the actual debate. Because of this the pendulum swings are faster and more violent. This too shall run its course and we'll get back to political sea change happening once every thirty years instead of once every thirty months.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Banning conservatives from government would make them slaves. Every citizen has the right to vote for the person that they feel would best represent them.

You're using the eugenic argument that there is a superior race or type of human. The Nazis used it to exclude Jews, gays, Roma, and anyone else they felt didn't fit their exacting standards.[/QUOTE]

Let me ask you this. Do you believe that global warming is real? How about evolution. If you say yes to both then let me ask you this, why? Do you believe them because you have done independent research yourself and observed both working? Chances are you just believe them based on scientists presenting you with a theory that makes a form of sense and you realizing they are a million times smarter then you or I.

So if now those same scientists come to you and say conservatives react out of fear and loyalty and their brains are not as developed for complex reasoning. Are you going to disregard them for the sake of political correctness out of fear of being labeled a new age nazi using eugenics on conservatives? Why is it that a scientist could put a bunch of evidence in front of you and you believe certain theories but not others?

Again I think you guys are taking this way out of hand. I am not honestly calling for conservatives to lose the right to serve or vote. Heck I am not even saying I as of right now believe the theory that conservatives are inherently inferior(though I do think scientists and psychologists are on to something with these studies). This is just a purely philosophical/intellectual question. IF and that again is still a big IF, if these types of studies keep being run and we find out that the conservative mind truely is hard wired to have these negative traits while the liberal brain is hard wired to deal with complex thought and believe in good things like justice...what does it mean for our society? The comment/question of them not being able to serve is just hyperbole and IMO an interesting way of phrasing the question.
 
Ideally people like that would never be elected in the first place, the most we can hope for is that the masses will one day open their eyes and see the batshit crazies for what they are. I wouldn't hold my breathe however. The problem with those studies is that they really can't tell if the difference in biological makeup is what makes one conservative/liberal or if being conservative/liberal changes that area of the brain. Which came first basically.
 
[quote name='Clak']Ideally people like that would never be elected in the first place, the most we can hope for is that the masses will one day open their eyes and see the batshit crazies for what they are. I wouldn't hold my breathe however. The problem with those studies is that they really can't tell if the difference in biological makeup is what makes one conservative/liberal or if being conservative/liberal changes that area of the brain. Which came first basically.[/QUOTE]

True. These studies have just now begun to be done, so it means all the data collected is just based on adults. However I would hope that in the future they would do more studies that follow kids from birth. Id also love to see a test that followed independents in this way.
 
rumblebear? is that you?

seriously totally not cool preventing people you disagree with from participating. try imagining a thread titled 'Should liberals be allowed in gov't'.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Again I think you guys are taking this way out of hand. I am not honestly calling for conservatives to lose the right to serve or vote. Heck I am not even saying I as of right now believe the theory that conservatives are inherently inferior(though I do think scientists and psychologists are on to something with these studies). This is just a purely philosophical/intellectual question. IF and that again is still a big IF, if these types of studies keep being run and we find out that the conservative mind truely is hard wired to have these negative traits while the liberal brain is hard wired to deal with complex thought and believe in good things like justice...what does it mean for our society? The comment/question of them not being able to serve is just hyperbole and IMO an interesting way of phrasing the question.[/QUOTE]

I'll say it again. You're using the same exact arguments that the Nazis used IF you're saying that conservatives are inferior. You're using the same arguments that slave owners used when they were asked about blacks. Slave owners legitimately believed that blacks were inferior and could only function with whites as their owners.

I'll flip it on you. If scientists prove that homosexuals are superior at planning and budgeting, should they be the only group allowed to govern?
 
[quote name='depascal22']I'll flip it on you. If scientists prove that homosexuals are superior at planning and budgeting, should they be the only group allowed to govern?[/QUOTE]

If we let the gays govern, what's next, letting dogs govern?!
 
[quote name='depascal22']I'll say it again. You're using the same exact arguments that the Nazis used IF you're saying that conservatives are inferior. You're using the same arguments that slave owners used when they were asked about blacks. Slave owners legitimately believed that blacks were inferior and could only function with whites as their owners.

I'll flip it on you. If scientists prove that homosexuals are superior at planning and budgeting, should they be the only group allowed to govern?[/QUOTE]

First off again you are making the mistake of assuming I believe they should not be allowed to govern. I have stated time and time again this is not the case. Second off your examples continue to be way freaking over the top. What you are doing is like the Tea Party idiots that compare Obama to Hitler. Besides the fact that I have stated this is not something I truly believe, there are also MAJOR differences between killing millions of people, saying you have the right to own a whole race of people and simply saying you may not be fit to hold a single type of job that effects millions of others. Its also quite different because again I am discussing this from the sense of a "what if this turns out to be true scenario" where as Hitler and whites in the olden times basically just made shit up and used quasi science at best. Again the argument that I put forth is not assuming that this is some half ass science, but years of study and research by respectable scientists.

Whatever though, ill just drop it now....as per usual it seems people regardless of which side they fall on cant even discuss a freaking hypothetical without going fucking crazy and misrepresenting the point the opposing side is trying to make. Heck it does not even seem like most people even bothered reading the post and just came in and blindly responded to the topic title.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']
Whatever though, ill just drop it now....as per usual it seems people regardless of which side they fall on cant even discuss a freaking hypothetical without going fucking crazy and misrepresenting the point the opposing side is trying to make. Heck it does not even seem like most people even bothered reading the post and just came in and blindly responded to the topic title.[/QUOTE]

Did you consider linking to some of these studies, assuming the results are available online? I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be interested in discussing it, but you haven't provided all that much information to go on beyond the hypothetical. I'd be interested in seeing these findings and I'd imagine it would allow most to form a more reasoned opinion.
 
Changed the topic title. Maybe now people can actually discuss the idea behind these tests further vs flipping out over nothing.
 
[quote name='bvharris']Did you consider linking to some of these studies, assuming the results are available online? I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be interested in discussing it, but you haven't provided all that much information to go on beyond the hypothetical. I'd be interested in seeing these findings and I'd imagine it would allow most to form a more reasoned opinion.[/QUOTE]

I figured since people were reading online a simple google search would work. Both studies I was referring to I read on my ipad last week so I did not have immediately on hand.

Doing a quick google search though. Here is one from all the way back in 2003 that was a psychological study from Berkley
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

Psychology today referring to another
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog.../is-political-conservatism-mild-form-insanity

Reffering not from the psychological end but from the anatomical end
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/28/conservatives-fear-center-brain/

These are just three from a quick google search. Again I have seen studies like this pop up fairly frequently.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']First off again you are making the mistake of assuming I believe they should not be allowed to govern. I have stated time and time again this is not the case. Second off your examples continue to be way freaking over the top. What you are doing is like the Tea Party idiots that compare Obama to Hitler. Besides the fact that I have stated this is not something I truly believe, there are also MAJOR differences between killing millions of people, saying you have the right to own a whole race of people and simply saying you may not be fit to hold a single type of job that effects millions of others. Its also quite different because again I am discussing this from the sense of a "what if this turns out to be true scenario" where as Hitler and whites in the olden times basically just made shit up and used quasi science at best. Again the argument that I put forth is not assuming that this is some half ass science, but years of study and research by respectable scientists.

Whatever though, ill just drop it now....as per usual it seems people regardless of which side they fall on cant even discuss a freaking hypothetical without going fucking crazy and misrepresenting the point the opposing side is trying to make. Heck it does not even seem like most people even bothered reading the post and just came in and blindly responded to the topic title.[/QUOTE]

You know, the funny thing is that some of these people who are opposing your viewpoint typically come down in opposition to conservative viewpoints.

I find your initial hypothesis a bit confusing as well if not illogical. You start by saying that conservatives are scientifically shown to have larger parts of the brain which control emotions which you characterize as fear but in reality "emotions" should cover an entire spectrum. You also state that studies have also found increased motivations for loyalty and tradition. Ok, all this sounds fine so far and I will not dispute it because I trust the scientific process.

Where you lose me though is how you jump from more emotions (including fear), loyalty, and tradition to linking that "conservatives are programmed to make knee jerk reactions..." What about emotions, loyalty, and tradition suggests that there is a proclivity for quick decisions or "knee jerk reactions?" I don't see the connection between the two because you're not showing how they are connected.

Furthermore, you don't state how conservatives showing a tendency for loyalty and tradition will mean "we will get in to far more wars as well as economical and social issues." Once again, your link between the 2 concepts seems to be entirely based on opinion.

I really don't see a problem with the scientific evidence but your argument connecting the scientific evidence and your conclusions seem entirely subjective.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']You know, the funny thing is that some of these people who are opposing your viewpoint typically come down in opposition to conservative viewpoints.

I find your initial hypothesis a bit confusing as well if not illogical. You start by saying that conservatives are scientifically shown to have larger parts of the brain which control emotions which you characterize as fear but in reality "emotions" should cover an entire spectrum. You also state that studies have also found increased motivations for loyalty and tradition. Ok, all this sounds fine so far and I will not dispute it because I trust the scientific process.

Where you lose me though is how you jump from more emotions (including fear), loyalty, and tradition to linking that "conservatives are programmed to make knee jerk reactions..." What about emotions, loyalty, and tradition suggests that there is a proclivity for quick decisions or "knee jerk reactions?" I don't see the connection between the two because you're not showing how they are connected.

Furthermore, you don't state how conservatives showing a tendency for loyalty and tradition will mean "we will get in to far more wars as well as economical and social issues." Once again, your link between the 2 concepts seems to be entirely based on opinion.

I really don't see a problem with the scientific evidence but your argument connecting the scientific evidence and your conclusions seem entirely subjective.[/QUOTE]

Fear was meant to be the main driver as for getting in to more wars and doing the other horrible knee jerk things. Loyalty and tradition are generally the excuse used to justify the actions later to not just others but in their own minds. The one article I read that largely dealt with the psychology of it(which is where things like loyalty and tradition come in)used the Koch brothers as examples. It talked about how to the rest of us it seems glaringly obvious that their actions are Evil as fuck. To them though it could feel like they are just being loyal to the family bussiness and doing whats right not for themselves but those that are important to them like their family or closest employees. It talked about how people like them are able to make desicions which to liberals may seem wrong, but to them feels as though it truely is the right thing.

When combined with fear IMO this would lead to a very dangerous knee jerk reaction type scenerio. Look at George Bush who liked to brag he made decisions from his gut.
 
Any links to these "studies"? From my experience, it's the opposite. Liberals tend to base their arguments more on emotion than conservatives.
 
Let's face it, the Republicans in congress are a bunch of trolls.

Also, we have basically the entire con gamut on this forum. If they were a venn diagram it would be a big circle marked "dishonest, ignorant, stupid, belligerent lunatics" with xxDOYLExx being the only one outside of said circle.

So no, they aren't fit to govern.

They don't believe in governing so this isn't some big surprise.
 
Let me put it this way, Magus. Believing in the inferiority of certain people leads to the exclusion of said groups.

The researchers themselves caution that more research is needed. Should we jump to conclusions before then? Your question makes it seem that we should explore the hypothetical where conservatives would be banned from government. How exactly is that a civilized discussion? Would you explore present day slavery as a hypothetical if a study is released that proves Caucasians as the intellectually superior race?

We don't need a hypothetical to show us what happens when certain groups are shunned and persecuted because of their beliefs. That's why I used the Nazi example. Yes, it's ugly. So would any hypothetical banning of conservatives. Don't get angry that I'm bringing real examples of exclusion to your hypothetical table.

I will also ask this again. If homosexuals are scientifically proven to be better at planning and budgeting, should they be the only group allowed to govern?
 
You know, I have to think that everyone deserves to have their voice heard and be represented, but at the same time, I want the best and most qualified people running the country, so it's a tough question. Some people ahve done such a glorious job of fucking shit up that in hindsight I can't help but think we would have been better off without them, yet even though I can say that now, I don't think I could go back and deny them the right to run.
 
The only way you can have the best and most qualified is to get rid of democracy.

That being said, you can have a democracy or a republic where voting is earned instead of granted at birth.
 
There are psychological differences between liberals and conservatives (and political conservatism is related to more fear of the unknown and uncontrollable than liberalism is), but these differences aren't all innate. Even if they are generally related to specific brain structures (which I doubt), that would only signal an inclination towards that way of thinking, not that you're biologically determined to be conservative or liberal. The brain is very malleable and differences in brain structures can be a result of environmental changes (i.e., learning things, using some structures more than others). There's no need or use for any of these weird eugenic policies of elimination. You have to educate people and change social structures if you want to change ideologies.
 
[quote name='SpazX']There are psychological differences between liberals and conservatives (and political conservatism is related to more fear of the unknown and uncontrollable than liberalism is), but these differences aren't all innate. Even if they are generally related to specific brain structures (which I doubt), that would only signal an inclination towards that way of thinking, not that you're biologically determined to be conservative or liberal. The brain is very malleable and differences in brain structures can be a result of environmental changes (i.e., learning things, using some structures more than others). There's no need or use for any of these weird eugenic policies of elimination. You have to educate people and change social structures if you want to change ideologies.[/QUOTE]

*hugs SpazX for reading the whole post and responding with a well thought out post*

Also @clak - Thats why I am all for not eliminating just conservatives, but all humans from the process. Just let computers make our choices for us :) Problem is we will still have to program the computer to handle things and what % of doing whats best for us vs whats right by the world do you program in.
 
I've actually thought of that, and came to the conclusion that we're doomed. Anything which is created by man is going to be flawed and most likely biased. We need some robot from space to come and solve our problems for us*.

* Not Voltron.
 
Spaz did not fully agree with me...again it seems you are not reading peoples posts.

"but these differences aren't all innate. Even if they are generally related to specific brain structures (which I doubt), that would only signal an inclination towards that way of thinking, not that you're biologically determined to be conservative or liberal. The brain is very malleable and differences in brain structures can be a result of environmental changes (i.e., learning things, using some structures more than others)"

He also made his point without resorting to gross exaggerations and blowing things so far out of hand. I know this is politics, but not all of us have to or want to compare everyone and everything to Nazis ;)
 
[quote name='Clak']You know, I have to think that everyone deserves to have their voice heard and be represented, but at the same time, I want the best and most qualified people running the country, so it's a tough question. Some people ahve done such a glorious job of fucking shit up that in hindsight I can't help but think we would have been better off without them, yet even though I can say that now, I don't think I could go back and deny them the right to run.[/QUOTE]

As someone else said, the best we can hope for is that people stop voting for candidates who aren't qualified to govern.

But that's not going to happen as there's always going to be a large portion of the voter's on both sides who aren't well educated, vote only for hot button social issues that really don't matter much in the grand scheme of things and so on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='MSI Magus']Spaz did not fully agree with me...again it seems you are not reading peoples posts.

"but these differences aren't all innate. Even if they are generally related to specific brain structures (which I doubt), that would only signal an inclination towards that way of thinking, not that you're biologically determined to be conservative or liberal. The brain is very malleable and differences in brain structures can be a result of environmental changes (i.e., learning things, using some structures more than others)"

He also made his point without resorting to gross exaggerations and blowing things so far out of hand. I know this is politics, but not all of us have to or want to compare everyone and everything to Nazis ;)[/QUOTE]

How is that a gross exaggeration? The Nazis used what they thought as science to "prove" the superiority of the Aryan race. Therefore, inferior races could be treated like cattle.

Also, I shouldn't have said that you agreed with SpazX. I should've said that you agreed with the way he presented his case. Since you didn't agree with mine, you dismissed it. Instead of calmly responding, you came back with an emotional response. Your entire response to this debate has been emotional. You changed the thread title because "people didn't understand your OP" and acted like people were mocking your thread. No. We're mocking the viewpoint that any of these studies could be used to exclude groups of people based on something so complex as ideology.

Also, SpazX's last sentence referenced eugenics which is exactly what I was talking about. It seems like you're not reading my post because it has Nazi in it. You got pissed that I dared to take your conclusion to the limit.

You also decided to gloss over my question because my post was somehow offensive to you. If other groups of people are proven to be superior or inferior, should that exclude the rest of us or that group from the process?
 
[quote name='depascal22']How is that a gross exaggeration? The Nazis used what they thought as science to "prove" the superiority of the Aryan race. Therefore, inferior races could be treated like cattle.

Also, I shouldn't have said that you agreed with SpazX. I should've said that you agreed with the way he presented his case. Since you didn't agree with mine, you dismissed it. Instead of calmly responding, you came back with an emotional response. Your entire response to this debate has been emotional. You changed the thread title because "people didn't understand your OP" and acted like people were mocking your thread. No. We're mocking the viewpoint that any of these studies could be used to exclude groups of people based on something so complex as ideology.

Also, SpazX's last sentence referenced eugenics which is exactly what I was talking about. It seems like you're not reading my post because it has Nazi in it. You got pissed that I dared to take your conclusion to the limit.

You also decided to gloss over my question because my post was somehow offensive to you. If other groups of people are proven to be superior or inferior, should that exclude the rest of us or that group from the process?[/QUOTE]

No I dismissed you because you were blowing things up with gross exaggeration and kept reffering to the debate at hand as though it was a policy I was calling for personally. You did jump to an extreme because you made the assumption that this would claim one group is inherently inferior. This was never what I said. This is like saying that just because women are built to be smaller then men they are inferior to men or that because African Americans are predisposed to several diseases like diabetes they are weaker.

Being unfit to govern may be a reality if this is true, but first off its not something id ever call for and second off even if it happened it does not mean conservatives are inferior it means in one single area of their life science has shown they are inferior. We are all born with strengths and weaknesses and if science can point them out then great, ill accept mine(for fucks sake I already have accepted mine as some of you know). I am sorry that you have to be so politically correct that you are happy to blow things out of proportions and start calling comparing people to Nazis. As I said before, why is it ok for you to listen to believe science sometimes but not others? Seems you like most people are scared to turn your core beliefs upside down regardless of what facts say.

If you still feel the way you do then do not bother responding because as Strell and many others can tell you I am perfectly happy to just ignore someone who wants to argue or be insulting vs having a debate. *really actually wishes he could stop posting online all together as he has sworn to do in the past*
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']As someone else said, the best we can hope for is that people stop voting for candidates who aren't qualified to govern.

But that's not going to happen as there's always going to be a large portion of the voter's on both sides who aren't well educate, vote only for hot button social issues that really don't matter much in the grand scheme of things and so on.[/QUOTE]

I think saying a large portion is an understatement. The LARGEST portion of our populace is ignorant and thus things will never change. My wife had surgery last week on the day Obama gave his speach. While at the hospital my mother in law was asking me questions about politics and finally I asked her why she was doing it. She said it was a crash course since I am "intelligent"(hate when people call me that)and enjoy politics. I told her that I did not see myself as intelligent, its just that I really fucking hate the idea of being ignorant so I chose to educate myself. 5 mins later she was back to reading her people magazine.....2 mins after that her husband got up and changed CNN which I and another gentlemen were clearly watching to Baseball.....

THAT is why things wont change.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']As someone else said, the best we can hope for is that people stop voting for candidates who aren't qualified to govern.

But that's not going to happen as there's always going to be a large portion of the voter's on both sides who aren't well educate, vote only for hot button social issues that really don't matter much in the grand scheme of things and so on.[/QUOTE]
Yep, representative government. Even the worst parts get representation.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']No I dismissed you because you were blowing things up with gross exaggeration and kept reffering to the debate at hand as though it was a policy I was calling for personally. You did jump to an extreme because you made the assumption that this would claim one group is inherently inferior. This was never what I said. This is like saying that just because women are built to be smaller then men they are inferior to men or that because African Americans are predisposed to several diseases like diabetes they are weaker.

Being unfit to govern may be a reality if this is true, but first off its not something id ever call for and second off even if it happened it does not mean conservatives are inferior it means in one single area of their life science has shown they are inferior. We are all born with strengths and weaknesses and if science can point them out then great, ill accept mine(for fucks sake I already have accepted mine as some of you know). I am sorry that you have to be so politically correct that you are happy to blow things out of proportions and start calling comparing people to Nazis. As I said before, why is it ok for you to listen to believe science sometimes but not others? Seems you like most people are scared to turn your core beliefs upside down regardless of what facts say.

If you still feel the way you do then do not bother responding because as Strell and many others can tell you I am perfectly happy to just ignore someone who wants to argue or be insulting vs having a debate. *really actually wishes he could stop posting online all together as he has sworn to do in the past*[/QUOTE]

I'm coming back far too late but I've been busy. Comparing African Americans' likelihood to have diabetes to conservatives' inability to govern isn't even close to a good comparison. One is an example of physiology and the other is ideology. I can become more or less conservative as I age but I can't become more or less African American as I grow older unless I somehow fall into a bad 80s movie.

For fuck's sake, I'm not comparing you to Nazis. I said that the Nazis already tried exclusion according to arbitrary parameters and it didn't work. You asked the question. I used a historical (albeit extreme) example of what happens when people think that it's acceptable to exclude.

Again, it's not an insult to disagree with you and use examples of what may happen when people are excluded. After all your bluster, you resorted to a sorry attempt at insulting me by calling me "politically correct". Not once did I ever discredit the opinion that conservatives might be inferior in any way. I just said that the practical application of these studies will lead to more trouble than they're worth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='depascal22']I'm coming back far too late but I've been busy. Comparing African Americans' likelihood to have diabetes to conservatives' inability to govern isn't even close to a good comparison. One is an example of physiology and the other is ideology. I can become more or less conservative as I age but I can't become more or less African American as I grow older unless I somehow fall into a bad 80s movie.

For fuck's sake, I'm not comparing you to Nazis. I said that the Nazis already tried exclusion according to arbitrary parameters and it didn't work. You asked the question. I used a historical (albeit extreme) example of what happens when people think that it's acceptable to exclude.

Again, it's not an insult to disagree with you and use examples of what may happen when people are excluded. After all your bluster, you resorted to a sorry attempt at insulting me by calling me "politically correct". Not once did I ever discredit the opinion that conservatives might be inferior in any way. I just said that the practical application of these studies will lead to more trouble than they're worth.[/QUOTE]
I agree. You can have a predisposition to conservatism, but that doesn't make you conservative just as you can be predisposed to diabetes, alzheimers, etc, just like that means that you'll get any of those as well. Being conservative isn't the same thing as having a developmental issues like the down syndrome. Yes, both can have some physiological roots, but that's where the similarities practically end.

This slippery slope has been tread many times through history already. I don't think we need to go there again. I'd still be more than happy to burn this mofo down though. :D

Not to say that conservatism isn't a sign mental illness of course(I kid, I kid). :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top