If you need better evidence than this about **IceQube’**s intentions here, I cannot possibly imagine what evidence that would be.
Oy, close to attacking the poster. Watch it.
No warning issued.
Well, I admit you’ve scored a point there - people like Michelle Bachmann are indeed much more tolerant and reasonable than people like Hillary Clinton.
On the other hand, Professor Ludwig von Hoofenmeister has a new study coming out proving that people exactly like me have the most desirable qualities of all human beings on earth. He’s my friend and I’m paying him, but he’s promised to be completely objective.
Is there any other reason to pretend you’re a good father? 
The Examiner “article” is self-serving tripe, and the less said about it the better.
The WSJ cite has a little more substance, but IMO fundamentally misrepresents Haidt’s work. More relevantly, it displays an essentially flawed conflation of causation and correlation.
IOW, it’s just another crap opinion by someone with an ideological axe to grind.
So to address the OP: Why are Libertarians more manly? They aren’t, and your argument, such as it is, is meaningless.
-a-
Actually the guy was a self-described objectivist, not a libertarian. To me, as an outsider, the differences seem bafflingly minute. I suspect it’s because to be an Objectivist you have to buy into Ayn Rand’s cult of personality, and many libertarians, while more or less agreeing with and admiring Rand, do not.
I live within walking distance of Reason magazine and I know some of these people. A lot of them are nice guys, and I’ve enjoyed drinking with them, but they aren’t any more manly than any other nerdy policy wonk in this town.
I guess it would be because libertarians envision themselves as take-charge, omni-experts who can handle anything. When in fact their policies are a trainwreck-clusterfuck that sounds like the economic system a 9 year old would come up with while on the toilet.
This is an absolute slaughtering of at least one of the listed positions. It’s also a facile oversimplification. If any liberal truly believed that human nature was overwhelmingly good, he’d be a naive fool. Liberals don’t necessarily reject that humans are inherently good, they simply accept that there’s a lot wrong with us and that this needs to be accounted for. It’s wishful thinking to imagine that a government could work without taxation. It’s wishful thinking to imagine that country could work without government. It’s wishful thinking to imagine that unregulated banking works.
Because a country needs some form of government, and even among the flawed, you can still gradiate from best (FDR, Lincoln, Washington) to worst (Hitler, Stalin, Palin). It doesn’t need a leader, but some form of governing body, some rule of law, is necessary.
Because libertarians are all too often ignorant, underinformed, idealistic to the point of naivety, and stuck up their own asses. Libertarianism is lovely in theory, but then you set it into practice and realize that oh so much of it is grounded on a massive just world fallacy, that libertarians assume more rationality from people than they can expect, and that so many of the things that would need to work for their philosophy just don’t.
But much of the hostility you’re feeling here isn’t just because of libertarianism, but rather because of how you present it. You bring up an incredibly questionable study from a bizarre source, and then use that to ask a presumptuous question (rather than the pertinent thing, which would be questioning the validity of the source first). You ask really dumb questions based on utter misrepresentations of the opposing positions. And you scoff at or ignore valid responses. We fight ignorance here, and with you, we’ve got a lot of work to do.
:smack::smack::smack:
Libertarians have more of a “Masculine psychological profile”?
As I saw in conversations elsewhere and remembering the libertarians I used to mop the floor with in impromptu debates at Berkeley, that profile also includes properties like being crude, rude and brutish.
Remember, not all elements in a profile are beneficial for a modern society, particularly profile elements that mostly a troglodyte would be proud to have.
IceQube,
In addition to thinking that women are inferior, do you agree with Ron Paul that non-whites are inferior? Just curious, thanks.
Dirty Fucking Hippies play hacky-sack with a bowling ball. Hunt grizzly bear with a baseball bat. Teach wolverines to play fetch, we don’t even throw anything, we just say “Fetch!” and they bring us something, or else. Our women think of the four-hour Viagra limit as “passing the audition”. Like your bankers says, there is a substantial penalty for early withdrawal.
So, OK, nancy-boy, bring your cute little bow and arrow and don’t forget your tu-tu. Or your daughter’s, no worries, we can make it fit.
We tried achieving peace and love being nice, didn’t work, so we’ve adapted…
Well Bubbha “feel[s] your pain” … I think that statement exemplifies emotion over reason.
I will freely say that none of the libertarians I knew in college struck me as particularly “manly” much less being more “manly” than the school’s liberals.
Admittedly, in my experience, most college students who are strongly political, regardless of their political stance come across as more “nerdy” than “manly”(however one chooses to define the term).
That said, and this isn’t meant as an attack on anyone, but I really don’t see this obsessiveness so many people have with libertarianism which is a pretty insignificant political philosophy outside of a few college coffee shops and certain parts of the internet.
I think most people view libertarians as Republicans who want to smoke up.
Wut?
Liberal policies don’t lubricate the machinery of freedom as well as libertarianism.
I was just offering it as a conjecture. I’ll admit I haven’t done the research. But I welcome information from any libertarians who want to participate in the survey.
I’ll put you down as a “didn’t deny the premise”.
Jesus fuck, elucidator. You’ve got to put my name in posts like that so I catch it on my hourly vanity search. I might have missed it.
That was certainly true up until a few years ago, but now we have a trendy plague of self-styled “libertarians” from Wingnutland who just tried to shut down the government. If someone like Paul Ryan gets to be a VP candidate then it can’t be that insignificant.
What about Bill Clinton and Warren Beatty in a bunker? Shirtless.
That’s manly. Yet, just short of going full circle and being gay.