When is it OK to hate Republicans?

[Apos]

Here’s the Republican “blogger of the year”:

By “the left” I’m including almost the entire Democratic Party, you can count the exceptions on your fingers, you can name them, Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman…The whole mainstream of the party is engaged in an effort that is a betrayal of America, what they care about is not winning the war on terror

…

I don’t think they care about the danger to us as Americans or the danger to people in other countries. They care about power.

I think I’ll take Dean’s goofy statements when he gets worked up over people that calmly and routinely accuse the entire opposition of betraying America and caring nothing about the dangers that face us.

[Liberal]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I pay taxes. The school voucher scam is just a scheme to funnel tax payer money into religious schools. Giving vouchers directly to parents does not wash off the fact tat it is tax payer money. Anyone who wants to send their kids to Baptist school can do it with their own money, not mine. I will happily pay more for public schools. I will not pay for religious indoctrination.

Why should what you would “happily pay” for be of any concern to them? Haven’t the parents who’ve gotten the money paid their taxes as well? I mean, are you the only one who pays taxes? You say they have no right to spend *your * tax money on religious schools, but what gives you the right to say how they have to spend theirs?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

[Avumede]

@John Mace

So how does this relate to the “No true Scotsman” fallacy? Whenever you vote, you choose from a limmited number of candidates. It’s very common for people to vote for someone simply because they don’t like the other guy, not because they are 100% in agreement with the guy they vote for.

Obviously no one is ever going to have 100% approval on 100% of issues, so demanding that sort of thing is disingenuous. Aren’t we arguing about whether Bush is representative of Republicans? Do you have any evidence at all that he is not? Because there is plenty of evidence that he is.

Completely irrelevant. Nothing is “obvious”, least of all the cause of personality.

Maybe not to you, but obvious to me. I am the father of fraternal twins, who have the exact shame shared environment. They have fairly different personalities, and exhibited differences from extremely early on. Where could these differences have come from? Not the shared environment, so either the unique environment or inborn traits. Perhaps it is all because of unique environment, but I fail to see how that is possible.

Your cite does not prove your assertion.

From the site:

Behavior genetics studies of adult personality make one thing abundantly clear: genes are important, and unique environment is important, but shared environment is not important at all (Eysenck, 1990). This conclusion could be devastating to theories such as psychoanalysis that place a premium on how parents treat their children (assuming that parents tend to treat all their children alike).

Explain how does this not support my argument?

But save yourself the bother of citing other studies. I’ve read dozens of books and research papers on the topic, and I can assure you that the hypothesis (and that’s all it is at this point) that personality is inborn has not be proven.

I’ve provided cites and reasons behind my assertion. You have provided nothing. Explain why you think the way you do, or back down.

I can assure you that this is even more in the realm of unproven hypothesis than even your first assertion.

Are you saying the studies are flawed? Or that the studies are contradicted by other studies? Because if the studies are not flawed, and not contradicted by other studies, than my point remains. As I have said before, though, I certainly might be wrong here. But you have given me no reason to think that I am.

[Liberal]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

But aren’t you in violation of that very clause by prohibiting them from the free exercise of their religion?

[tnetennba]

@Liberal

But aren’t you in violation of that very clause by prohibiting them from the free exercise of their religion?

Since when has “the free exercise of religion” entailed an entitlement to government subsidy?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Liberal

But aren’t you in violation of that very clause by prohibiting them from the free exercise of their religion?

How am I prohibiting them from free exercise? They are in no way inhibited from practicing whatever they want or from sending their kids to religious schools. They just can’t use tax payer money to do it.

[Evil_Captor]

I’m always amused when libertarians come down on the side of school vouchers. They are so frightened of government that they’ll allow religion to substitute for it. What fools.