Obviously, you missed where I said “I agree that there isn’t a good argument against gay marriage” (or however I phrased it).
Here we go again with the wriggly wiggling that you think passes for legit debate. Do you genuinely not understand this? You said that I was “the one that tried to turn this into a philosophy debate”, and then rather clumsily attempted to take me to task for that. I pointed out that you are the one who tried to bring John Rawls into this pages ago, so no I was not the one who made this about philosophy.
Your devastating reply to that was to say ‘that marine biologist quote wasn’t about you!’.
Jesus, can you really not follow that? How very sad.
Oi vey. Go back and read what happened.
I mentioned that the unborn were human beings and that we could simply look to science, in this case embryology, to see this. You show up and said, in effect, “But this is a philosophical matter, so science doesn’t matter!” and posed three or four questions which were philosophical in nature. I played your game, asking you for clarification on a few points, you gave me some kind of non-answers, if you bothered responded at all, I responded to your post and then you cried foul. That is what’s being talked about, which I’m sure you realize.
(And since you want to bring it up, when I mentioned John Rawls it was not to debate the nature of the unborn, but rather what policy or laws you would adopt if you had to envision a scenario in which you could either be killed or have someone else killed.)
Ummm, no. You might want to reread what happened there.
I can; can you?
Also, I’m kind of bummed that I won’t be getting any responses to the first half of my post. I was kinda all excited over the prospect.
So it’s not philosophy when you bring up philosophy, but it is philosophy when I refer to you bringing up philosophy. Got it.
What, the part where you claim that conservatives are so much more enlightened than liberals and try to support it by linking to an article that says:
and goes on to offer an alternate explanation that you’ve ignored:
Yes, that was a crushing blow to my view on conservatives all right. I’d also point out that it’s easy to be confident in your views when you’re an idiot. If you see the world in black and white I’m sure it’s very easy to dismiss all the shades of grey that other people can see.
So “100% conservative” or not? Being a conservative and being an advocate of the subjection of sexual minorities are practically interchangeable terms these days. And as for your dedication to your troll persona, it’s got to be slipping if you can’t even hold on to that.
Seriously. I’m not sure how much simpler I can explain it to you, since it was already explained in the simplest form possible already, yet you ignored it.
You know, your reading skills are pretty horrible indeed.
(1) The first statement was that conservatives are more likely to click on articles, not just blogs (which are accessed by ~5% of political readers daily), with opposing views than are liberals. Oops.
(2) The second statement, which you quoted above, was about journalists, not about conservatives in general. Oops. The statement after that, though, was about conservatives, in general, and how they tend to read both conservative and liberal blogs but liberals only read liberal blogs.
(3) I like how you ignore the fact that what you quoted wasn’t a part of the study and the author’s opinion on the matter. Because, you know, that would be important. Of course, it doesn’t much matter, anyway, as it doesn’t much help your cause when “the other side” is more willing to confront view points which may not match their own than is your side.
…Yeah…
So ignoring the unsubstantiated “conservatives are idiots” quip, I have a more plausible theory. When you are more knowledgeable or confident in your position, you are more apt to seek out debate and converse with people who hold a different opinion than you do. On the other hand, when you are less knowledgeable about your position or less confident in it, you are more likely to group with people who will reinforce those beliefs. Why would you go to a website full of people from “the other side” just to dismiss their opinion and pretend like they don’t exist? It’d be easier to just-- you know-- not go at all.
I’m pretty sure that’s not true at all. Support for gay marriage is more a function of age than it is anything else.
Oh look. It’s the dreaded “T” word.
I’ll bite. I am pro-choice. Someone give me a good pro-life argument that doesn’t require religious BS.
Is there some reason that you think the talk radio theory wouldn’t apply to articles as well as blogs? Is there some reason that we are only allowed to consider the conclusions of one scientist, who admits she was not actually studying the readers motives but just their behavior, but we must dismiss out of hand the conclusions of another scientist? Is there some reason that you’ve never read a scientific paper in your life and don’t know that the conclusions of a single researcher are not necessarily taken as gospel?
As for why conservatives enjoy getting themselves riled up by reading liberal articles, I don’t know. You guys seem to enjoy building up a good reserve of righteous indignation for whatever reason. I don’t pretend to be a social scientist, but I imagine there’s any number of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with confidence, so I don’t find your theory particularly ‘more plausible’. Even if some do it out of a sense of confidence, there’s no reason to think that confidence isn’t misplaced. Take you, for example - you seem to have a sense of self confidence that is wildly out of proportion to your actual abilities or intelligence. If that’s generally representative of the sort of confidence most conservatives have in their views, it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for your side.
Quite frankly, I don’t really know what this is supposed to mean. If liberals dominate the blogosphere and conservatives the radio, then the same way conservatives read liberal blogs you should see liberals listen to conservative radio. Buuut, as is the whole point of the paper, you do not see this. Liberals tend to stick with those things which conform to their views while conservatives do not. There’s not much way to slice that any differently, though I’m sure you’ll continue trying.
To be honest, I read this quote like twenty times and, nope, still not understanding what you’re trying to say, especially since both came to the same conclusion (conservatives are more likely to read opposing viewpoints than are liberals). You’re just focusing on why conservatives might be more apt to read liberal blogs than liberals are conservative blogs, to which one researcher offered their opinion. Of course, since only ~5% of people who get their news online read blogs, it isn’t exactly a big deal either way, as it doesn’t reduce or change the fact that conservatives are more likely to read opposing views than are liberals (this includes all forms of online media, since that is what was used).
What about the conclusions of two researchers?
Come on, now. Do you really want to go there? Surely you don’t, given the fact that it’s not conservatives who claim racism, classism, sexism, ableism, ageism and/or any other -ism they can think of. Righteous indignation in regards to the latter almost always comes from those of a liberal persuasion.
I’m fairly positive it’s not my theory. In fact, I believe the link says:
Can I assume this means that ignorance has been fought? Or, at least, pushed a little to teh side?
…Yeah…
The above is a good example of how things are not only on this board, but in general. Conservatives debate; liberals insult.
But, really. If I have a sense of self-confidence is because (1) I look things up, so I know when someone is trying to BS and (2) I understand basic logic and know how to debate. Ergo why I’m not bothered by people who try to insult me. If they had any kind of argument, they’d use them instead of having to resort to insults. It’s easy to fling a couple of insults and disregard what someone else says; it’s a lot harder to actually respond to them.
[QUOTE=FixMyIgnorance]
I’ll bite. I am pro-choice. Someone give me a good pro-life argument that doesn’t require religious BS.
[/quote]
The unborn are human beings and, as a result, should be afforded the same rights as all other human beings. Simple.
Well of course there isn’t a ***good ***argument. It’s all the ***bad ***arguments that we are constantly having to fight against.
By your own admission, you’ve only taken one university course dealing with animals, and have forgotten most of it.
You don’t know anything about science, and certainly know nothing about embryology.
I’ll listen to your judgement when you post in a thread about dirt.
Oh, it’s you again. Where’s the “no true Scotsman” I’ve come to expect‽‽‽ Anyway, even assuming I knew nothing about nothing, that’s what links are for. So you don’t have to take my non-expert, know nothing word for it.
Oh, and you should know that dirt isn’t exactly the same thing as soil. And to think, you call yourself a marine biologist. Pffft!
Only one of the researchers is quoted as saying anything about confidence - the other mention of confidence comes from the writer of the article. And the one researcher who mentions confidence also says that she wasn’t trying to determine the motives of her subjects. And, incidentally, that study only used college students, so I’m not sure how valid it is to extend those results to the general populace.
But hey, congratulations on finding a single opinion piece concerning a small amount of second-hand science that vaguely fits your world view. I’m sure nobody else could have done it. You must have been quite a formidable researcher back in university.
Uh huh. Shall I remind you of some of your numerous insults from this thread alone:
Are you going to try to claim that that’s all ‘debate’ because you are so wonderfully conservative and obviously must be above insulting people?
Or are you going to claim that those things are all just truths? Because in that case I’ll just point out that my observations about your high level of confidence and low level of intelligence are also truths. You stride into every abortion thread with the haughty air of someone who think that they are the smartest kid in class, then proceed to crap nonsense all over the place. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Right, like the right to live inside someone else’s body. All human beings have that right! Come on, FixMyIgnorance, you *must *be convinced!
Actually, Knobloch-Westerwick mentions confidence and how conservatives are more likely than liberals to read opposing views while Davis mentions certainty and how liberals read liberal blogs almost exclusively yet conservatives tend to read both.
Did you know that confidence in one’s views has nothing to do with motives and why someone might look at “the other side’s arguments”?. In fact, I believe Knobloch-Westerwick herself says:
You’re welcome.
So ignoring the fact that you made a fantastically ridiculous statement absent of any evidence outside of the fact that since you said it then it must be true (“conservatives are mostly pretty stupid and also that they tend to cry like whiny little babies when someone dares to disagree with them”), I actually gave you a bit of evidence which shows that conservatives are at least more willing than liberals to read and/or listen to opposing viewpoints and are generally more confident in their views. You, as said above, gave nothing outside of your opinion. And, funnily enough, you still have given nothing. In situations like these, the common thing to do if you disagree would be to put forth the counter evidence or something which would, you know, lend credence to your statement. Preferably some kind of study or something though I don’t think I’ll ever be getting one. For obvious reasons.
Now, with that being said, let me give you a little bit of anecdotal evidence intended to dispute your claims; evidence, mind you, which will undoubtedly get me hit with accusations of having “a persecution complex”. Now I can’t speak of Canada, though I surmise it’d be the same, but in the U.S., liberals are far, far, far more likely than conservatives to whine, bitch and moan about someone having an opinion different than them, especially if you happen to be a minority.
If you’re Black but don’t toe the liberal line, you’re either an “oreo”, a “sell-out”, an “Uncle Tom” or a “traitor”. If you’re Hispanic and don’t toe the liberal line, you’re a “coconut”. If you’re a woman who is anti-abortion, you’re a traitor (the irony in that one is delicious). Pretty much, if you disagree with liberals in some form, expect to be called a sexist (usually said to be a misogynist), a homophobe, a racist, terrorist, an idiot, brainwashed, uneducated, a right-wing fascist or some other such accusation. This board is pretty good proof of that, yourself included.
Now I could go on, but why should I? Point being, you were speaking out of your ass and will probably continue to do so.
Indeed, I was 
Oh, you don’t have to remind me, since I’m well aware that I drop an insult every now and then. I’ve explicitly stated this is multiple threads. I ain’t above human nature. This, however, is not what I’m talking about and I’m pretty sure you know it. I’m talking about insults, no matter how they are disguised, which take the place of actual debate. You know, responses where you in effect get something like “You’re wrong and an idiot” (they also appear in the form of “you’re just a sexist who hates women!”) and don’t respond to what someone has typed out.
(I can find you multiple examples of this if you want, and not just limited to abortion.)
I used to semi-complain about it in GD’s, but the mods didn’t really do anything, so I stopped. Though I do point it out every now and then.
…Yeah…
Okay, I’ll bite. Nonsense? Just because people don’t like conclusions or the arguments used against you, don’t make those conclusions or arguments nonsense. If I somehow act like the smartest kid in the class or have an air of haughtiness, it’s probably because there’s a degree of haughtiness involved in (1) being right about something and having the requisite information to prove you’re right (i.e., when I said that women use abortion as a form of birth control, or that legalized abortion is negatively associated with the adoption rate, or how legalized abortion was correlated with an increase in the rate of STD’s, or how age is positive in its association with approval, or how men and women tend to hold the same views on abortion but that, where differences are found, women are less approving of abortion than men, etc.) and (2) knowing that you’re opponents arguments are inherently ridiculous and lead to absurd logical conclusions.
I’d say I act like the smartest kid in the class much the same way most people around here act like they’re the smartest kid in the class when it comes to gay marriage. Once you accept the fact that you’re on the “wrong” side when it comes to abortion, you can be haughty when it comes to abortion, too
And there is more of that failed snark I’ve come to love. Now only because it bears repeating:
You know, positive vs. negative rights and all that jazz.
(Wait. What’s that?)
I suggest you look up the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. You are using it incorrectly.
And marine biologists do not generally work with dirt or soil or whatever it is that you do. So I bow to your expertise in this area.
Yeesh, what a poor justification for your shitty behaviour. So you get to act like an asshole because you’re right about everything and we’re all wrong about everything. But you can’t take it when you get a few insults in return. Boo hoo, poor little conservative.
Right. I’m done here. I’m sure you’ll chalk this as another ‘debate’ you’ve won, and you may go right ahead. Anyone who reads this thread can see what really happened.
Sign me up… That bloke is the single worst intellect I’ve ever encountered. There isn’t a logical fallacy in hell’s nine-volume encyclopedia he hasn’t used. My favorite is his habit of declaring victory. As if asserting, “I’m right, and have been proven so,” is enough to make it factual. Argument via edict!
I’d call him a chowderhead…except that I have more respect for chowder.
First and foremost, when I’m around here, I’m always on my best behavior.
With that being said… I know I said this before but I’ll say it again; your reading skills poor. Atrocious, even.
(1) I didn’t claim to be “right about everything”.
(2) I can actually take insults; that wasn’t the point I was making. Often times (especially when I first started posting here) I noticed that instead of respond to my points people would just be like “Oh, you’re an idiot so I don’t believe that!” or “That’s right-wing propaganda so I’m going to ignore it!” (even if I got it from a left-leaning website) or something similar. In fact, they still do it now. I can’t speak for other conservative posters, but I’d be willing to bet that they’ve noticed much of the same thing in regards to themselves.
Way to bitch out there. And, no, I’m not even talking about the fact that you posed all those philosophical questions yet didn’t want to play the game. No, I’m talking about the fact that you made a rather ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim, got called on it in the form of a study and anecdotes with sources, but instead of choosing to acknowledge them or countering them with your own sources, have instead decided to cut and run. To be honest, that’s kind of pathetic, but not all that surprising.
…Yeah…
This again.
What age is that?
I predict that no one will answer this, particularly OMG. Or he will but he will argue that his position isn’t religious BS.
The problem is, your links don’t prove what you think they do. Such as the one that had a scientist using the word individual, or whatever the word was; if s/he is writing about something other than “rights of the unborn”, then they aren’t going to be concerned about the nouns they are using. And of course if s/he is writing about the “rights of the unborn”, then obviously they are biased.
What you need to find, and what doesn’t exist, is at least one study that sets out to prove scientifically that a zygote is the same thing as a human being from conception on. Not something that says that it will “become a baby” or that a fetus is part of the process or whatever. No, what does not exist is actual proof that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a human. Until that happens, it’s just opinion, and no one has the right to force their opinions off on others.
I vaguely remember going over this with you before, but you-- and not just you, in general-- really need to get off the whole religious schtick. I’m tired of going over this. Seriously. Just read this* and, if nothing else, just the abstract and pay close attention to age and religiosity.
Methinks you should start over. You were the one who said that the fetus wasn’t an individual as no individual was being acted upon in an abortion. You’re also the one who said your definition of an individual was “scientifically correct”. As the webpage on embryology I sent you to showed (and virtually any biology book will attest to), you were wrong.
Well, that is, unless you’re going to assert that you are right and books on embryology are wrong or backtrack and say that your definition of an individual isn’t “scientifically correct” at all and is-- gasp– just your opinion.
So what you mean to say is that if something says “a zygote is a human being” or “the life of every human being begins as a zygote”, that they’re not saying that a zygote is a human being? Because that would be ridiculous. Of course, I’m also speaking to the individual (hah!) who deems facts which don’t agree with her to be opinion, so it’s entirely within the real of possibility.
*To meyer6, that’s what a cite looks like 