LPSG

Why republicans suck

Because they are all about money. No matter what the topic it always comes back to THEIR money... And now- there is scientific proof that the more people think about money the less helpful they

is part of a discussion in the Politics forum that includes topics on Political and government related discussions..


Go Back   LPSG > Main > Politics

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-05-2008   #1 (permalink)
Phil Ayesho is offline

Why republicans suck

Because they are all about money.

No matter what the topic it always comes back to THEIR money...

And now- there is scientific proof that the more people think about money the less helpful they are to others.

Take a read

Thinking about money makes people selfish.
Phil Ayesho is offline  
Old 10-05-2008   #2 (permalink)
Jovial is offline


That article made it sound like a good thing. "Money is cognitively and mentally linked to personal goals. It allows people to do things efficiently and not need other people.

It didn't mention republicans at all! Why do you have to put a spin on it? Just posting "content whose primary purpose is to disrupt or inflame"?
Jovial is offline  
Old 10-05-2008   #3 (permalink)
mindseye is offline


Phil, this is a load of shit.
mindseye is offline  
Old 10-05-2008   #4 (permalink)
Phil Ayesho is offline


ITs not a load of shit- it is proven...


And, understand... I am all for people being self reliant...

But there is more to society than that.


I single out republicans because their entire agenda is founded in their concern about money. PRo- free markets- Against any social programs... why? Because they cost money and the poor should be self reliant. Because they "shouldn't have to pay for other people".



As I have said before, I think conservatism has an important role to play--

But not the ONLY role to play.


And the facts are the facts... the people who are actually politically OPPOSED to 'helping' their fellow citizens, are the very ones who are so eager to dre-regualte the flow of what?

Money.


Evade it all you please... but the science is clear...
EVEN for republicans, the LESS they think about money, the more likely they are to be of service to their fellow man.


Ask a republican about their problem with "liberal" issues and they come down to TWO motivations.
Religious fascism ( law should reflect MY personal religious beliefs)

And Money. ( I should get to keep as much as I possibly can )
Phil Ayesho is offline  
Old 10-05-2008   #5 (permalink)
Domisoldo is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Ayesho View Post
Because they are all about money.

No matter what the topic it always comes back to THEIR money...

And now- there is scientific proof that the more people think about money the less helpful they are to others.

Take a read

Thinking about money makes people selfish.
Are you the new, "improved" Trinity?
Domisoldo is offline  
Old 10-05-2008   #6 (permalink)
mindseye is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Ayesho View Post
ITs not a load of shit- it is proven...
It's not proven.

You've tried to make this syllogism, which falls flat:

  • All Republicans love money ("they are all about money")
  • Loving money makes one less helpful. (your cited argument)
  • Therefore Republicans suck (...because they're less helpful.)

The first premise is false: Republicans are a loose coalition of disparately-interested parties: some of them are Republicans out of a love of money; some of them want to repress sexual expression; some of them think brown people are scary. But it's overly simplistic to pretend that they're all about money.

The second premise is at best unproven: a single study provides evidence towards a hypothesis, but scientific proof requires that a theory stand up to repeated testing.

Too late to make a long story short here, but I stand by my belief that your argument here is a load of shit.

Oh, and paragraphs: they're a good thing.
mindseye is offline  
Old 10-05-2008   #7 (permalink)
Phil Ayesho is offline


I made no such syllogism.

The title of the thread does not appear in my argument.

I state that republicans suck because they are all about money.

That is an opinion.

I then go on to make the well supported argument that scientific studies demonstrate that people thinking about money are less likely to be helpful to other people and more likely to act selfishly.

This is proven.. the study clearly showed unambiguous results. Thinking money...less helpful.

Unless and until you can cite a contradictory scientific finding, that constitutes proof.
I.E. Proof, in science, is VALID EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT...

( "theory" is not shown to be "true" by evidence... it is shown to be proven. THis means the evidence supports the theory. IT does not mean a better theory won't come along later... nor does it mean that proof in refutation can not be found... in science Proof = evidence in support. )


I THEN point out that republican policy and positions boil down to two primary concerns... Religion and Money.


And that the republican platform, against "social" programs for reasons of disliking spending money HELPING the disadvantaged... and FOR Free markets, for the reasons of rewarding a focus on money with more money...
are perfectly in keeping with the findings of this study.


Now- I don't know where YOU were schooled, but that is an argument that is well supported and AGREES with the findings of independent, non-political ( therefore not biased ) scientific investigations.

You can not CLAIM its false... you can not just pull a denial out of your ass...

You want to BEAT an evidentiary argument... you gotta show EVIDENCE in refutation.


You can claim that Some republicans are scared of brown people or sex, but that is immaterial... WHile I agree with the observation... it is NOT stated in their platform. You are INFERRING their motives.

Their monetary policies and their reasons for opposing "liberal' agendas ARE stated in their literature. I am CITING their stated motives.

Ergo, I have made a supported argument based entirely in fact, and you have failed to refute it.


That I feel their pre-occupation with money, explaining their lack of support for programs that help others, makes them SUCK...as citizens in a society...

Well, that is simply my opinion of people with these traits...

But the traits themselves are proven because the Republicans , themselves, espouse them.
And now, the contributory causal relationship between preoccupation with money, and a lack of compassion and helpfulness toward others is also proven and amply illustrates why we always see Love of money go hand in hand with disregard for others.
Phil Ayesho is offline  
Old 10-05-2008   #8 (permalink)
Phil Ayesho is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by Domisoldo View Post
Are you the new, "improved" Trinity?
ooo
that hurt..

I don't cite opinion pieces from politically biased rags...
I cite science.


I cite the republicans OWN talking points about the glory of the free market and the evil of Liberal social agendas...
Phil Ayesho is offline  
Old 10-05-2008   #9 (permalink)
mindseye is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Ayesho View Post
I then go on to make the well supported argument that scientific studies demonstrate that people thinking about money are less likely to be helpful to other people and more likely to act selfishly.

This is proven.. the study clearly showed unambiguous results. Thinking money...less helpful.
No. It's not proven. You cited a study. Studies are prone to various types of error, including sampling error -- the same type of error that political polling is prone to. It takes repeated sampling to confirm the results of a single study.

Quote:
Unless and until you can cite a contradictory scientific finding, that constitutes proof.
Wow. You pulled that out of your ass without even grunting. I'll illustrate how colossally stupid that statement is:

I just pulled two socks out of my drawer, and they were both white. Now, "unless and until you can cite a contradictory scientific finding", I've proven that all of my socks are white.

It's obvious to anyone with the IQ of a potato that I haven't proven anything; I've just chosen a sample that's too small from which to draw a definitive conclusion. More samples are needed to constitute proof.

Similarly, the lone study you've cited is only a single sample: a few socks out of the drawer of money-loving people.

Quote:
Now- I don't know where YOU were schooled
I completed my undergraduate degree at Guilford College; took graduate courses at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro; completed my master's degree at Virginia Tech; and am currently enrolled in a Ph.D. program also at Virginia Tech. But does that matter?

Quote:
You can not CLAIM its false... you can not just pull a denial out of your ass...

You want to BEAT an evidentiary argument... you gotta show EVIDENCE in refutation.
False. Showing that the evidence is lacking is all that's required to refute. How do you reconcile

Quote:
Ergo, I have made a supported argument based entirely in fact, and you have failed to refute it.
with:

Quote:
I state that republicans suck because they are all about money.

That is an opinion.
Your premise that the Scientific American article has anything to do with Republicans is based on something that you've admitted is opinion, and not fact. Without that opinion, you have no connection at all with the link you've cited and the political argument that you're feebly trying to make.
mindseye is offline  
Old 10-05-2008   #10 (permalink)
Domisoldo is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Ayesho View Post
ooo
that hurt..

I don't cite opinion pieces from politically biased rags...
I cite science.


I cite the republicans OWN talking points about the glory of the free market and the evil of Liberal social agendas...
You're a monument of contradictions, Phil. You decry religion at every corner yet you exhibit that sort of manichean fanaticism so prevalent in the most intolerant religious groups.
Domisoldo is offline  
Old 10-05-2008   #11 (permalink)
Phil Ayesho is offline


Really--
HOW?

Come on- make an argument...

I am intolerant of intolerance?


Its kind of the same philosophical position as skepticism.
How can you be a skeptic if you are not skeptical of skepticism?

So to be a true skeptic you can not be totally skeptical, because even skepticism must be suspect.


SHOW me where I contradict myself....

I have made it abundantly clear that I am sick to death of what Republicanism has become.
Sick to death of the lying and criminality. Sick to death of republicans excusing Republicans for ANYTHING and crucifying anyone else for less than nothing.

And I take every opportunity to point it out because I am flabbergasted that ANYONE can support a party that has DONE the precise OPPOSITE of what it CLAIMS its actions to be.

If I hired a guy to build an addition and he, instead, demolished my entire house... would I not be upset and want my money back?

And then some?


I began in the political vein with a thread, much like this one, showing how a scientific study had shown a link between fearfulness and inability to deal with new and unexpected experiences in 3 year olds, with their identifying as republicans at age 23.

This just adds to a more complete understanding of WHY republicans take the positions they do, excuse themselves but not others, respond to Fear based arguments, and have an antipathy to helping others.
Phil Ayesho is offline  
Old 10-05-2008   #12 (permalink)
uniqueusername is offline


ABC News: Who Gives and Who Doesn't?

Quote:
Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money.



And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government


"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.
There. I just posted a study.

Oh, and in case you wanted to insult religious people more:

Quote:
Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.



Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:



"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."
uniqueusername is offline  
Old 10-05-2008   #13 (permalink)
transformer_99 is offline


Ever notice the one's with more are the first to be asking those with less to contribute or give more of themselves ? Anyone can ask another to give more of themselves or their material possessions. Give what you can and what you can live with ? Every 4 years we have a new President that runs on this platform, Americans are going to have to come together and do more. I still laugh, Bush has his Freedom Corp(se), that doesn't get any press at all for what it's done ?

USA Freedom Corps - Make a Difference.* Volunteer.

established after 9/11/2K1, does anyone know it still even exists, visits the website and so on ? Volunteer ? If you can volunteer why shouldn't you get paid for your time and efforts ? I'm not talking compensated with fabulous wealth, but reasonable and customary ? Not in the budget, yeah right, we have $ trillions for a bailout, but nothing for community service ? Not in the budget to me means the organization intends to do without it and shouldn't expect, require or even demand someone to provide a service or item.

There's a phrase, "Charity begins at home."
transformer_99 is offline  
Old 10-05-2008   #14 (permalink)
Phil Ayesho is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by uniqueusername View Post
ABC News: Who Gives and Who Doesn't?


There. I just posted a study.

Oh, and in case you wanted to insult religious people more:
Sorry, fella- Albert BROOK's OPINION is NOT a "study".

SHow actual scientific results based upon INDIVIDUAL ACTION.... i.e.- Warren Buffet and Bill Gates both gave billions- AVERAGED over the whole upper class that brings up Mean considerably- but it does not indicate that those thinking more about money give more.

In fact- it could be argued that Warren and Bill give more because- in their positions, they no longer need to even think about money.


I can claim to have seen studies that show, AS A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR DISPOSABLE INCOME, the Rich give far less.... but saying so is not actually SHOWING you published results of actual science.

However I CAN argue that, were it not for the tax deductibility, the rich would give even less.
If your objective in writing a check is to have your remaining money taxed at a lower rate, or to shelter other income, or even to appear more palatable and therefore win a position you covet... none of those are really "giving" to others--- it's negotiating your own position in regards to money.



As to the religious... the fact that I identify Republicans as ALSO being motivated by religious fascism does NOT imply that their Religious fascism has anything to do with their tendency to not be giving of themselves toward others.
It just happens to be ANOTHER aspect of modern conservatism that is objectionable in its own right.


The idea that YOUR religious beliefs, from the idiocy of Creationism, to repressive attitudes towards sexuality, should be made into LAW affecting Everyone.... well, that is Christian totalitarianism.

And I am sorry, but if you count yourself a Christian - and you voted FOR BUsh or Will vote for McCain, then you have no right to call yourself a Christian.

Why? Because Jesus ALWAYS votes AGAINST war. That's why.


Understand that I know full well that there are LOTS of Christians who are cool with real science and who would NOT vote to force their beliefs down other's throats.

If they happen to also oppose the War and the death penalty... then they are probably REAL Christians...
And I have no problem with them-
Just as I have no problem with MOST Muslims who simply practice their faith and leave other people alone.


But Fundamentalist Religious Extremism, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu or what have you, is nothing but Fascism- plain and simple.

And Christian fascists are far more dangerous than muslim fascists, because they can vote.


No doubt that people who have faith do a lot of giving. MOST democrats have faith, too.

The mistake is to imagine that that willingness to give has ANYTHING to do with faith.

People tend to mistake their natural sense of compassion as coming from God.

The truth is, their delusional notions of God spring from their own innate compassion.

You can keep the compassion... and lose the delusional sky daddy.
Phil Ayesho is offline  
Old 10-05-2008   #15 (permalink)
B_faceking is offline
Banned


Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Ayesho View Post
ITs not a load of shit- it is proven...


And, understand... I am all for people being self reliant...

But there is more to society than that.


I single out republicans because their entire agenda is founded in their concern about money. PRo- free markets- Against any social programs... why? Because they cost money and the poor should be self reliant. Because they "shouldn't have to pay for other people".



As I have said before, I think conservatism has an important role to play--

But not the ONLY role to play.


And the facts are the facts... the people who are actually politically OPPOSED to 'helping' their fellow citizens, are the very ones who are so eager to dre-regualte the flow of what?

Money.


Evade it all you please... but the science is clear...
EVEN for republicans, the LESS they think about money, the more likely they are to be of service to their fellow man.


Ask a republican about their problem with "liberal" issues and they come down to TWO motivations.
Religious fascism ( law should reflect MY personal religious beliefs)

And Money. ( I should get to keep as much as I possibly can )

All Republicans are greedy. This article proves it.

B_faceking is offline  

Tags
republicans, suck

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:47 AM.

Latest Threads
Some new pics
29 Minutes Ago by ar5

Latest Posts
Some new pics
3 Minutes Ago by marlin
Trannyontranny
13 Minutes Ago by Mister

Latest Blogs

On Cam Now
garmer, nick4fun

Please read the rules.

Online: 1810 | Chatting: 31

Sponsors

Copyright 1999 - 2014 lpsg.com. All rights reserved