Aloso @ Fasces. You are using the term fitter here in the strict biological meaning of the term. Others here use ''evolution'' to explain our past and ongoing progress from our so called barbaric ancestors. I am sure that you find this as odd as I do in the light of the history of the last century.

Incidentally, history as a grand dialectic of historical forces is Marxist thinking... which doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just that it's not useful if you don't consider yourself a revolutionary.

"@ Fasces, I agree as far as you go, but the one thing you assume is a constant environment. Given that the environment is subject to change, today's successful adaptation might well be tomorrow's handicap. (today and tomorrow to be read figuratively). "
I never stated environment, all I said was "by better I mean one which can reproduce more easily in its environment."
by in environment, obviously it means the present day environment, which to the animals of tomorrow is tomorrow.

but you right, many people assume that stronger=better, smarter=better etc. which in natural selection isn't the case.

Dinosaurs were strong, so why aren't they alive, if they were so much better then us, why are they no longer alive? Natural Selection clearly disagrees with us that Dinosaurs are better then, say Dolphins, simply because Dolphins are still around today, while they are not.

A good recent example of stronger=worse, is Elephants in Africa.

Up until the 1960s, Elephant tusks where on average getting larger because big tusks are a more desirable trait then small tusks mainly cause females thought a male with big tusks was attractive, that big tusks male would get more kids. However enter the poacher with a rifle and a large demand for ivory around the world.

Since then the average tusk size (according to a documentary I watched on Elephants) has decreased 30%. Since poachers targeted Elephants with large tusks, it was no longer a favourable gene, even though Elephants with large tusks remain stronger and more attractive then Elephants with small tusks, the environment calls for small tusks.

So you right, natural selection doesn't mean evolution will cause a better species, just one more suitable for its supposed environment.

@fulhamish....so....what....you are suggesting that, via the process of evolution, single cell organisms DE-VOLVED into human beings? Are you a fucking retard?

@PUTIN

"explain to me how this study has uncovered a link between conservatism and neanderthalism."

The basic instincts of humans are vile, tribal, nasty, and brutish.


You stupid fucking jackass...lover of all the is natural and evolutiojnary....UNTIL NOW....NOW...we just have misinterpreted evolution. Who the fuck ever said that mankid evolved from brutishness to....as you suggest....more brutishenss?


BUT WAIT...Putin...YOU are SOOOOO damned thoughtfulll....therefore the 'HEIGHT of evolutiuon"....and YOU SUPPORT A BRUTISH FORM OF GOVERNMENT....so....therefore...YOU, PUTIN....support the Neanderthal for of life that you now mock???

Let me help ALLLLL OF YOU:

The STUDY IN QUESTION IS BULLSHIT, even though it shows Liberals to be idiots.

THE STUDY OF NEANDERTHALS AND SUGGESTIONS OF THEIR BEHAVIOR IS BULLSHIT....because you can not repeat the expirement.


Get a life, morons.

Krellin,

Cool it man. If you look at post 2 and post 3, you'll see that the main exercise of this thread was to TROLL.

Putin is one of the most abrasive characters I know, but you are derailing my thread.


@ Putin: re: "The basic instincts of humans are vile, tribal, nasty, and brutish."

This is your proof that conservatives are neanderthals? Lame, not to mention baseless. Besides, none of these terms, nor this description of human behavior were discussed anywhere in the study.. In fact as several have pointed out (to quote Emac)

'The paper defines a core part of conservative thought as "an emphasis
on personal responsibility."'

A prime example of "vile, tribal, nasty, and brutish" human behavior.

To all those in favor of evolving away from personal responsibility, please +1 Putin.

"including adjusting my opinions in order to get into more arguments"
Wait, I'm not the only one who does this?

"Winning an argument doesn't make you right."
I know this, however I love arguing(its why I chose to become a troll, lol), is it sad that there is nothing I enjoy more then arguing?

"There's no such thing as a "liberal."" "But right-wingers occasionally are, and they like to call themselves conservatives anyway."
I actually agree with this as well, in fact ever since Putin called me a neo-liberal on the forums way back when, I have been calling myself the same thing. (on top of that the economist refers to itself as a liberal newspaper even though everyone else calls it conservative, simply because its right wing). I call everyone I disagree with on the left socialists and everyone I disagree with on the right Nazi's (essentially, if I don't like what your saying, I try to bring it back to some form of socialism, lol), however in some cases I will call myself a conservative because the party I align with is the conservative party of canada (campaigned for them in may, apparently my riding was one of the ridings which is being investigated for illegal robocalling, so my work for them might have been useless).

3. "Socialism" isn't always "socialism." It's usually just an attempt to control some externalities with some marginal policy changes, to which the knee-jerk reaction is to scream "socialism."
Nah, socialism is when the fucktards on the left try to overregulate, overspend, overtax etc. because they believe they know best, when they don't.

"Stop viewing politics as a grand dialectic of historical forces. That's what it is from where the generals and politicians are sitting, behind the lines and behind the fog. Down in the trenches - at the margins - is where the action happens. That's where you realize that you've got more in common with the guy on the other end of your rifle than you do with the guys behind and above you."
This is where why disagree, the only reason why I am fighting for the guy up top is because I would rather him be up top, then the person I am pointing my rifle at.

"Aloso @ Fasces. You are using the term fitter here in the strict biological meaning of the term. Others here use ''evolution'' to explain our past and ongoing progress from our so called barbaric ancestors. I am sure that you find this as odd as I do in the light of the history of the last century."
This is a thought I have often debated about and haven't made a decision on.

Our biggest differences between our political views now compared to 100 years ago is entirely as you put it, cultural. Our culture slowly evolved from what it was then, to what it is now.

However is culture considered part of evolution? I sometimes think (not argue think) yes, and sometimes think no.

After all, culture effects natural selection (many marriages are based on cultural reasons) and it still comes from the evolution of thought (most people's cultural, political beliefs etc. are based on their environment, an environment which is changing, and sees the culture of the future generations changing with it).

However, everything we believe is from what were taught.

I'm pretty sure that we're, on average, no smarter or stronger then we were 100 years ago, but we appear smarter because we know more and are taught more. There is no genetic difference so how could it be called evolution?

"@fulhamish....so....what....you are suggesting that, via the process of evolution, single cell organisms DE-VOLVED into human beings? Are you a fucking retard?"
He's not saying that Krellin, he's saying that evolution doesn't mean the evolved is better then the unevolved, in in some, not all, but some, cases its not.



The last thing I want to say is I can't wait for Putin to bring up the time last year where I claimed Caucasians were a superior race that evolved from Negroids.

Fun times.

@ Fasces and AverageWhiteBoy

While I don't condone your attempt to bring reason into my troll thread, I must say I agree with much of what you say.

I'm a fiscal conservative, with widely scattered views (from a traditional conservative/liberal perspective) on religion, creation/evolution, environmentalism, social programs, etc.

"Nah, socialism is when the fucktards on the left try to overregulate, overspend, overtax etc. because they believe they know best, when they don't."
Couldn't have said it better.

@Lief....you fuckiing moron....I *choose to troll* constantyl...you think that make syourpont someho more worhy? Idiot;.

@Fasc
"Wait, I'm not the only one who does this?"

Not by a long shot.

"I know this, however I love arguing(its why I chose to become a troll, lol), is it sad that there is nothing I enjoy more then arguing?"

Of course not. Just don't delude yourself into thinking that any of your victories mean anything.

"Nah, socialism is when the fucktards on the left try to overregulate, overspend, overtax etc. because they believe they know best, when they don't."

Over-, over-, over-. Where are the margins?

"This is where why disagree, the only reason why I am fighting for the guy up top is because I would rather him be up top, then the person I am pointing my rifle at."

And I think this is where we MUST disagree: I don't follow Canadian politics, and the events that pushed me over the fence probably didn't affect you the same way they affected me.

And then there's this:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/getting-more-liberal-with-age/

@Fasc: "Nah, socialism is when the fucktards on the left try to overregulate, overspend, overtax etc. because they believe they know best, when they don't."

One more thing: what is this called when fucktards on the right do it?

Hey Krellin,

When are you going to bring that smack to the table and play me head to head in squad leader?

I'm trolling for you as much as for Putin..

@ AverageWhiteBoy

Corporate Greed

Liedf...

One...I am in SO many fight on here...I apologize...but I will **kick your ass*** in Squad Leader...

And two....I get to be the fucking Nazis!!! :P Better equipment, and better "i'm scared" ratings... lol

Krellin,

So long as the Nazi's are attacking Russians. I'm pretty handy with 4IFT snakes rolls when defending against a nazi assault, and I can rip german SP guns a new one with T34's. You got a favorite scenario? Maybe TAHGC Scenario 3 or something (I forget the name of it)?

And take your time, I'm still working on my thesis, so my time is limited as well, just thought I'd throw down the gauntlet again.

Now, OUT OF MY THREAD YOU ANGRY OLD MAN!!

"http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/getting-more-liberal-with-age/ "
bullshit.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html

18-29
66% Democrat
32% Republican

60+
51% Republican
47% Democrat

1980:
18-29
44% Democrat
43% Republican

60+
41% Democrat
54% Republican

Is it a coincidence that in any election, the exit polls show older generations vote conservative while the younger vote liberal?

What I showed above was 2 elections 30 years apart with the same voters, the voters in the 1980 election who prefered Carter in 1980, prefered McCain in 2008.

"Over-, over-, over-. Where are the margins?"
Isn't thats what makes debate fun?

"One more thing: what is this called when fucktards on the right do it? "
National Socialism :P

@ Fasces

Yeah where the hell is that blog getting their info? A study based on surveys? Isn't that what this whole thread is centered on? A study makes a finding and someone draws a conclusion from the study yelling LOOK I HAVE PROOF, A STUDY SAID SO!!!

Fasc: "Is it a coincidence that in any election, the exit polls show older generations vote conservative while the younger vote liberal?"

Coincidence, no, but the article explains it if you would have bothered to read it. Older people, having started out further to the right than younger people, tend to vote to the right (unless they started further to the left). And the parties position themselves juuuuust close enough to the center to pick up fifty plus one (at least in the US). The battle lines aren't where they used to be.

"Yeah where the hell is that blog getting their info? A study based on surveys? Isn't that what this whole thread is centered on? A study makes a finding and someone draws a conclusion from the study yelling LOOK I HAVE PROOF, A STUDY SAID SO!!! "
Troll much? But yeah pretty much, a lot of studies contradict each other and /had retarded methodologies and fucked up bad.

However many, if not most, academic studies do bring insighful logical and reason and are still useful and not to be disregarded because of a certain few mishaps.

"Coincidence, no, but the article explains it if you would have bothered to read it. Older people, having started out further to the right than younger people, tend to vote to the right (unless they started further to the left). And the parties position themselves juuuuust close enough to the center to pick up fifty plus one (at least in the US). The battle lines aren't where they used to be. "
The parties haven't changed that much, Reagan was pretty right wing etc.

@ Fasces "However many, if not most, academic studies do bring insighful logical and reason and are still useful and not to be disregarded because of a certain few mishaps."

My point (of both that post, and this thread) is that what is stated as a possible implication in the study is often held forth as the main finding of the study by others, and the whole study is often cited as proof. The study itself may or may not be valid, regardless of how the study is quoted by the third party. That is not my issue, it's how the conclusions drawn based studies are treated.

At best the study I stole from 2ndWhiteLine's thread showed correlations between low-effort thought, and what can be labeled as conservative viewpoints. Both my erroneous trollish conclusions, and the implication that conservative viewpoints are somehow less desirable because they are somehow less intellectual than liberal viewpoints are by no means valid simply because they cite a study.

I look at a blog like this and treat it with a healthy amount of distrust until I've verified it's contents through careful study. Rarely does anyone (the so-called unbiased press least of all, and that goes for both sides) provide a truly unbiased opinion.

I'm not sure if Leif is being serious but all the same it's actually a good point.

My first thought was how it proves that any bit of information or study like this can be spun equally in any direction according to your various pre-existing biases.

And Putin please stop making me hate the left. I usually like the left.

Just stop being so antagonistic. We would all love you more. I love to hear your thoughts but I hate when you are such a mean person and so unnecessarily hostile, which is often.

Peace

@ Thucy, I randomly drift between serious and trollish asshat.

Depends on where Putin or his anti-matter clone Krellin is in the thread at any given point.

"The parties haven't changed that much, Reagan was pretty right wing etc."

How long has "right wing" meant what it does now?

Since LBJ

Hell of a start. What have we learned since then?