Where are the liberal trolls?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ May 18 2007, 11:00 AM) [snapback]444846[/snapback]</div>

If "that" refers to FourOhFour and Alric's posts, then it proves a baseline only if you have the math skills of a large soapdish.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ May 18 2007, 09:36 AM) [snapback]444780[/snapback]</div>

Your point is that liberals are not moral? If so, I can see who is dispensing the crap here.

 

Back to the OP for a second: I see Pinto Girl's point, but have to say that I do think we're a left-leaning bunch to begin with, so, as has been said before, we don't get a lot of liberals trying to over-compensate, until they're responding to conservative flame-baiting.

Speaking of which, Berman's questions:
This list is a nice example of the mental gymnastics required to maintain some of the conservative philosophies:
* First, combine a bunch of statements that everyone can easily agree on.
* Next, oversimplify some issues and demand a yes/no answer and complain that anything other than yes or no is evading the question.
* Finally, for even more complicated issues, lump some together so that answers that might otherwise be obvious become difficult.

I'll Answer your questions though:
1. Overly Simplified. I don't think it's a constitutional issue, first, since the constitution is pretty clear about individuals having individual rights. But I don't think abortion should be a free-for-all.
2. Combined issues. Two people who love each other is one thing, and I don't have a problem with it. More than two people introduces a lot of variables that people have repeatedly demonstrated to be a bad setup, regardless of all parties' good intentions, so I say no to multiple marriages. I reject the "religion" argument because multiple marriages often lead to breaking other laws, or infringing on the rights of some or most people involved.
3, No
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12: Yes
9. Overly simplified.
10. You're engaging in a bit of religious persecution by generalizing too much. To whom specifically are you referring?
11. Only he and a few other people know the answer to that. I doubt they'd answer truthfully if asked though My liberal-biased, under-informed opinion is that he had an idea of something coming, but not what it was.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ May 18 2007, 08:26 AM) [snapback]444758[/snapback]</div>

WOW,

Well put Marlin

As for Liberal replies, to conservative threads. They seem to follow, "The Liberal Rules of Arguing" to a tee as seen below....

http://www.useless-knowledge.com/columnist...i/article6.html

http://www.useless-knowledge.com/columnist.../article24.html

After reading them you too will see the resemblence's in their posted replies..

 

A very interesting thread indeed.

One thing I am noticing is that a lot of similar views are grouped in similar geographic regions. Coincidence?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ May 18 2007, 11:00 AM) [snapback]444846[/snapback]</div>

It's sad that letting people do what they want when it doesn't harm others is an extreme idea.

I also note that all the questions were social related. I wouldn't be surprised if economic questions would drag us a bit more towards center.

 

There are two approaches to posting on Prius chat (and any forum).

1) Online community. Meet like minded people (For PC, it's a shared interest in the Prius). Feel part of a community, have lively discussions, help each other out, share experiences and kill time.

2) Boxing ring. Polarize views and evoke emotional discussions for personal enjoyment rather than a means to discuss actual solutions or refine points of view.

I am sure if you go to a right leaning website, the situation would be flipped. You'd have kind decent conservatives seeking community and good discussion with the occasional liberal troll trying to piss people off.

But here at PC, it is quite clear who seeks community and who seeks bickering and polarization. I don't personally care, it allows the rest of the community to practice dealing with close minded antagonists. What I find striking, is that the concept of community is a church like concept, and the the most important function of religious institutions. Yet the "religious right" are the most divisive people around. They are the first to beat the drums of war and to say "bomb them". They see the world as more black and white as others and get angry that others understand the concept of bell curves and grey areas in sociology and politics. They are the most likely to call names and evoke Goodwin's law.

That's why my bumber sticker reads "Support faith based missile
defense". I just find it humorous that the more religious someone is, the more supportive of violence and war they are. This is true across ALL religions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ 2007 May 18 5:16 AM) [snapback]444755[/snapback]</div>

The more I learn of other cultures, the more I realise there's more than one 'right' answer. People are not all the same. Most of us have the same basic needs, but we are unique individuals. "The more I learn, the less I know" does not mean we lose our minds as we age, it means we become increasingly aware of how much there is to know.

Insisting that any one viewpoint always has been and always will be the only correct possibility is neither intelligent nor mature.

More experienced? Yes. More conservative? No. Smarter? Not necessarily.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 18 2007, 10:10 AM) [snapback]444809[/snapback]</div>

1. No
2. Yes
3. yes
4. yes
5. yes
6. yes
7. no. They should all have the opportunity, but it is not a right. People shoudl be fee to be stupid.
8. Yes
9. No
10. No
11. You've got to be kidding. No one can keep a secret in this town!
12. What comprises "total and complete seperation?" There's a memorial in the Pentagon to the victims who died there on 9/11. There's an adjacent chapel. Does that constitute a violation of seperation of church and state?

And here's a question for you in return:
Should I have capitalized all the responses consistently?

Thank you!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ May 18 2007, 12:04 PM) [snapback]444904[/snapback]</div>

Ignorant people know everything.
Smart people know how much they don't know.
Highly intelligent people know that they don't know how much they don't know.

 

And truly intelligent people recognize that people don't get smarter as they age. They may have more knowledge, but intelligence is a measure of ability that can only decrease after our brains stop developing

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 18 2007, 07:16 AM) [snapback]444755[/snapback]</div>

This is an old, old cliche. Once again, a conservative calling everyone (over 40) who disagrees with them stupid.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ May 18 2007, 12:04 PM) [snapback]444904[/snapback]</div>

obviously you are under forty

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 18 2007, 12:23 PM) [snapback]444917[/snapback]</div>

is this a liberal concept?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ May 18 2007, 10:11 AM) [snapback]444857[/snapback]</div>

You must have a book that you get this stuff out of... <strike>you couldn't possibly be this smart</strike>... Um... yeah, I guess you could..

Would someone help Zen out here. He/she/it can't figure out that this place is severely liberal.

Please use very simple pictures, or it won't do any good.

Thanks!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 18 2007, 11:33 AM) [snapback]444927[/snapback]</div>

no... Scientific studies have clearly shown that ones intelligence - that is to say their capacity to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn - doesn't significantly change over time.

Without getting into too much neuro-science, the brain processes inputs and provides outputs through many extremely complex and interconnected neural networks. These networks evolve based on a persons ability to release chemical reactants that provide positive or negative feedback to the network. It's highly likely that intelligence is directly related to these processes - someone who is more intelligent is better able to regulate these chemicals in their brain, directing their neural networks more accurately.

The problem with measuring intelligence is that it's a combination of a huge number of things which interact. for example, you might be able to, over time, learn new languages or processes for solving certain types of problems. However, when presented with something new - a language you've never heard, a problem you've never seen, this additional knowledge won't help... But how do you measure that on a test?

Is it a conservative concept that people can get smarter over time?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ May 18 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]444939[/snapback]</div>

Daron, do us a favor and answer all of Berman's questions. show us all how a liberal thinks differently than a conservative on these issues.

 

Sometimes I get the impression that the 2-3 top posters from the far right are actually fake/red herring posters intending to push moderate members farther left. That's how divisive and arrogant those posters come accross sometimes.
It just seems that the childish, hateful name calling and complete inability to discuss things rationally is too effective in uniting everyone farther to the left for it NOT to be the intended result.

I do acknowledge that most conservative posters here are civil and I respect their opinions, even when I disagree with them. But I rarely see liberal minded posters resort to the name calling and trollish behaviors here. But again, I would expect to see those too at other sites where the liberal poster would be in the minority.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ 2007 May 18 9:33 AM) [snapback]444927[/snapback]</div>

No.

The next poster...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 18 2007, 11:23 AM) [snapback]444917[/snapback]</div>

That's a dubious statement.
The brain stops growing around 18. After that, it spends the rest of it's life fine tuning the neural connections to be more efficient. That process is a result of the workout's it gets. Just like any muscle, an used brain or unused portions atrophy from non-use. A well used brain can continue to stregthen it's ability until it reaches a point of age where mental capacities diminish from old age. This diminishing begins at varying times depending on genetics, lifestyle, and environment. Actual intelligence is probably pretty static from about 25-55, but the things your brain is good at will change.

Intelligence is not even measureable in any accurate way, since there are so many different jobs of the brain and even many differnet ways for the brain to accomplish a task, such as memory. Just like you might pump up your arms but have spindly legs, or vice versa.

Zen, watch the name calling, it's unnecesary.

 

A hear a lot of our Neocon friends here whining about "the extreme left". Of course, they seem to consider anyone to the left of Joseph McCarthy to be "extreme left".

My question: Name who you would consider to be a moderate liberal. Just one. And Joe Lieberman doesn't count, I said liberal.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyrin @ May 18 2007, 11:30 AM) [snapback]444924[/snapback]</div>

Which once again proves my theory that "Dr" "Berman" is some 15-year-old kid in his mom's basement. By his definition, he can't be 20 or 40 because he has no heart nor no brain.

 

"A hear a lot of our Neocon friends here whining about "the extreme left". Of course, they seem to consider anyone to the left of Joseph McCarthy to be "extreme left"."

That goes both ways. No one thinks their POV is extreme, so by default, those on the other end of the spectrum are extreme.
It's like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.