Atreus21 said:
How do you prove that?
You don't, you just provide a bunch of leftist drivel "studies" that say there isn't any bias, then say "see, the majority of research says there isn't any!".
This has been debated in many threads, but there simply isn't a way to properly measure subtle bias in reporting. When the vast majority of those in a profession are self admitted libs, only an idiot would conclude that the product of their work would not be slanted to the left.
Yep. In many of my classes at the uni (both undergrad and masters), you had to make sure to keep any non leftist thoughts to yourself lest you get screwed over by the intolerant left profs. This is not news at all, and it's the same in the general media.
lol. You really have the perfect circle of epistemic closure here don't you? You believe the media is biased, but the people who study media bias are also biased so you don't have to believe anything they tell you.
You've been able to cocoon yourself in a perfect little fact free zone where nobody can disturb your feelings of persecution and perpetual victimhood. Bravo!
Then how come so many "intellectuals" are part of conservationist groups? oh snap! lol I'm just joshing ya
btw check out the documentary Indoctrinate U http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/
MrMuppet
If the discrimination isn't illogical it isn't conservative discrimination.
As long as he's illogical he's a true conservative.
Then you made the term "conservative" redundant. Your position can be simplified to "people who discriminate against others, should be discriminated against themselves" or "an eye for an eye", at least in regards to discrimination.
Then if, according to another person's definitions, it is found that not every single conservative discriminates "illogically" beyond any reasonable doubt, any discrimination against conservatives is unjustified.
(Discrimination is by definition illogical btw, although the term is misused a lot, hence my tautological addition of "unjustly".)
The application of "Scot" in this case is tied to methodology used by the Scot. Otherwise we'd be applying labels at random to every proposition:
"The world is 6000 years old."
Let's call this belief a liberal one!
Uhhhh... conservative? Yeah, that's it!
Libertarian? Sure, why not?
Hmmmm.... liberal again?
6000: "No, fuck you, 6000 is the only True Liberalism! I will kill all 6003 believers in the name of my One True God as my Holy Book commands!"
See? It just doesn't work to tie the labels to beliefs in an absolute sense irrespective of underlying method.
That was a pretty WTF red herring there.
You believe the media is biased
Nope, I know it is.
, but the people who study media bias are also biased so you don't have to believe anything they tell you.
Nope, not all of them are, just most of them. Much like MMGW, it's an area of science that has been co-opted by political ideology to the point where the science takes a back seat to political agendas.
Its 2012 and people still believe that there is some difference between being liebral or conservative. There is not. People are are either or when ever it suits their opinion on a subject.
I'm sure they did. If you keep telling yourself that's what happened then I'm sure it did.
There is not a single one of my friends/family that hasn't run into the same political blacklisting in any California University or College. It's a reality and it's accurate.
classy said:
Your absolutely right.... bit liberals are worse. LOL
Conservatives are motivated by feelings of disgust and this of course makes them disgusting. They don't mean to be but they vomit on you and that pisses people off. Even intelligent people, who should be smart enough to know better, get pissed off by stupid people. There's just such a thing as being innately abhorrent. I think conservatives should have dogs. Everybody loves dogs and when you love a person's dog you can better tolerate them. It should be mandatory that conservatives have dogs for that reason. I could talk to a conservative all day about his dog. Even dog shit isn't as offensive as human vomit. I always ask a conservative who hasn't got a dog and wants to rant about gays to stick a charcoal briquette up his ass so I can have a diamond at the end of the conversation. That tight ass thingi, come to think of it, may be why the vomit so often.
OneOfTheseDays
The sooner we can rid this country of modern Conservatism as we know it today the better. These people are literally retarding the discourse in our country. A good chunk of our electorate is simply baffled and amazed at how stupid Conservatives consistently are on a broad range of issues.
The truth has an inherent liberal bias because liberals tend to stick with facts and real-world observations. Conservatives always go with faith and what their gut tells them.
Doc Savage Fan
OneOfTheseDays said:
I'm simply baffled and amazed at how stupid you are to regurgitate such a simplistic and moronic viewpoint. Do you actuallly think you're intelligent? Think again.
Which of course explains why they advocate for programs that encourage single motherhood, and judging by the liberals here have no problem with single motherhood. It is because the facts show it is not detrimental to children or society
Conservatives are motivated by feelings of disgust and this of course makes them disgusting.
The purposeful spreading of misinformation is against forum rules. I like you, which is why I am giving you this friendly warning.
It's the other way around. Here is conclusive proof from the Congress that it in actuality is the Deomcrats who retard the discourse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg Hasty generalization fucking rules!
Doc Savage Fan said:
But the scientific evidence confirms it, sadly. You may be an unwitting victim and are reacting on faith.
I guess it's probably normal for a conservative to be disgusted by theidea thatsomebody might be spreading misinformation, as likely, I guess, as a conservative would have any real information to contrast misinformation with, but rest assured I kknow of which I speak. Just one of many sites relaying the disgust factor among conservatives. This just seems so intuitively obvious to me:
Easily grossed-out? Obviously you're conservative
by | 12 Jun 2009 |
Do you shudder at slime, gross out at gore, or cringe at creepy-crawlies? Well, you're probably a political conservative and you almost certainly disapprove of gays and lesbians, according to researchers at Cornell University.
Study leader David Pizarro, working with academics from Harvard and Yale, surveyed 181 adults from swing states on both a standarised disgust sensitivity scale and a political ideology scale. This yielded a correlation between being easily grossed-out and political conservatism. To refine this, they linked 91 Cornell undergrads' disgust sensitivity to their positions on gay marriage, abortion, gun control, labor unions, tax cuts and affirmative action. Easily disgusted participants were likely to oppose gay marriage and abortion, and somewhat more likely to support for tax cuts. (Their results were published in the journal Cognition & Emotion.)
In a separate study in the journal Emotion, Pizarro and his colleagues discovered that easily disgusted people also disapproved of gay and lesbian sex -- although for this they had to employ techniques which reveal attitudes which people may be unwilling to report explicitly or that they may not even know they possess.
The psychology of disgust, an area opened up by University of Virginia academic Jonathan Haidt, has become a weapon in attacking the notion that some actions are essentially immoral. This approach deems conventional morality to be based largely evolved on taboos which have been created by emotions, especially disgust.
This has become an important argument in bioethics ever since bioethicist Leon Kass, an opponent of cloning and human embryonic stem cell research, wrote about "the wisdom of repugnance". Although he certainly did not mean that repugnance alone justified moral judgements, many have ridiculed him for advocating irrational ethics.
Pizarro's research supports his view that conservative ethics is motivated by disgust and is therefore irrational. "Liberals", he believes, are more likely to be cool and rational and to base their opinons on whether an action causes harm. ~ Newswise, June 4
Hit a nerve?
shadow9d9
There is no way to prevent single motherhood. It is inevitable. It is REALITY. Helping those in need makes sense. You could create a fantasy world for yourself where this reality doesn't exist.. but it would still be fantasy. Better to make policies based on reality.
"Liberals" don't exist in American politics at the moment, outside of Vermont's senator. You have the middle/right democrats and the off the cliff right, the Republicans. It makes no sense that there can be "liberals" all over controlling everything, yet have no representation in the government. Put the "liberals" conspiracies to a rest people.
That being said, I majored in political science in a NY school and nearly every professor was conservative and I had specific instances of being penalized for having different views. So what. Who cares.
woolfe9999
He was expressing a pure opinion. You're not going to be able to establish it as "mis-information." When he says conservatives are "disgusting" that isn't really a falsifiable statement.