Conservative Have Larger Fear Center!

[Moonbeam]

I was thinking the same. What exactly do they mean by "conservative?"

This kind of thinking is natural for folk seeking to exempt themselves from the topic of discussion. Naturally, you personally must be some kind of exception.

I, for example, am conservative on health care and want to preserve what is and wake up at night with bad dreams that Republican progressives are going to change it. But see how I man up to my fears and readily confess them. I am terrified of this and that, but fear itself doesn't scare me.

 

[PeshakJang]

This is interesting. I've discussed before the notable correlation between conservatives and fear, but thought it was just a thought process, but this makes sense.

There are a lot of very confused posts so far on this, mistaking the issue.

For example, when the scientific community warns of global climate change, it's the rational who evaluate and agree with the concerns.

It's the right-wingers who are paranoid and fearful of the scientists.

Note the constant message from the right - who are wrong 95% of the time about liberals here - who are always posting fearful straw men of liberals.

This makes them all too easy to manipulate, like mice into traps.

And there's Craig, right on cue, with another pseudo-psychological wall of text that both misinterprets reality and elevates his own sense of intellectual superiority to new heights.

Forget the fact that he didn't bother doing 5 minutes of research, and obviously just accepted the message of the story outright... that's par for his course. His post actually proves my point, that according to the story's research, liberals both have a harder time learning, and are less able to form healthy interpersonal relationships.

This is an interesting case, since we have a history of posts we can look at to apply our knowledge. Craig repeatedly posts long-winded, intellectually lacking rants, and is repeatedly shown his own ass on the way out when confronted with facts. In a normal person, the pain of defeat associated with these events would condition a learning response to avoid future such incidents... but due to Craig's smaller amygdala, he has a more difficult time in interpreting such events and incorporating them into his long-term memory. Reality fits the facts.

Coupled with his degraded capacity for interpersonal relationships, we can conclude that the combination of these two effects would lead to less ability to learn from embarrassing, public events, such as when he is forced to abandon his flimsy arguments and resort to tired cut-and-paste lines and name-calling, when he is confronted with the facts of reality.

But now, we have scientific experimental evidence to explain this... and we can safely say that it is not his fault. Perhaps we can create a protected class for those liberals with below average size amygdalae, and give them special protection so others cannot exploit their handicap.

Truth234

 

[Scotteq]

they be fear teh goverments be taken over smokins in public!!!!!

Actually: Since you appear to be referring to the smoking thread, please understand that none of you have made a case proving/showing that somehow Private Businesses must be made responsible for policing/regulating individuals who smoke. As pointed out in that thread, a more appropriate response if you wish to regulate smokers is (duh!!) to regulate smokers. But when confronted with this, the response is that logic is irrelevant because you're going to pass/enforce regulations on business anyhow.

This type of logical and mental lapse does indeed appear to be indicative of impaired brain function.

 

[Genx87]

And there's Craig, right on cue, with another pseudo-psychological wall of text that both misinterprets reality and elevates his own sense of intellectual superiority to new heights.

Forget the fact that he didn't bother doing 5 minutes of research, and obviously just accepted the message of the story outright... that's par for his course. His post actually proves my point, that according to the story's research, liberals both have a harder time learning, and are less able to form healthy interpersonal relationships.

This is an interesting case, since we have a history of posts we can look at to apply our knowledge. Craig repeatedly posts long-winded, intellectually lacking rants, and is repeatedly shown his own ass on the way out when confronted with facts. In a normal person, the pain of defeat associated with these events would condition a learning response to avoid future such incidents... but due to Craig's smaller amygdala, he has a more difficult time in interpreting such events and incorporating them into his long-term memory. Reality fits the facts.

Coupled with his degraded capacity for interpersonal relationships, we can conclude that the combination of these two effects would lead to less ability to learn from embarrassing, public events, such as when he is forced to abandon his flimsy arguments and resort to tired cut-and-paste lines and name-calling, when he is confronted with the facts of reality.

But now, we have scientific experimental evidence to explain this... and we can safely say that it is not his fault. Perhaps we can create a protected class for those liberals with below average size amygdalae, and give them special protection so others cannot exploit their handicap.

Truth234

lol

/thread

 

[Craig234]

Actually: Since you appear to be referring to the smoking thread, please understand that none of you have made a case proving/showing that somehow Private Businesses must be made responsible for policing/regulating individuals who smoke. As pointed out in that thread, a more appropriate response if you wish to regulate smokers is (duh!!) to regulate smokers. But when confronted with this, the response is that logic is irrelevant because you're going to pass/enforce regulations on business anyhow.

This type of logical and mental lapse does indeed appear to be indicative of impaired brain function.

You are a very confused person.

You say 'no one has made a case'. But what case is needed? What case would you want?

People's lives being saved, the long-estabished idea of the government protecting workplace safety, for example, you just ignore, like you showed them wrong.

I happen to support the policy you call 'more logical' - banning smokers - but banning smoking in the workplace is not 'illogical', especially when banning smoking is infeasible.

Your attack on his logic is ironic - you are the one who has a poor understanding of it.

In fact, you are making nothing more than a childish 'poopyhead' name calling post.

 

[BoberFett]

I was thinking the same. What exactly do they mean by "conservative?"

As self-proclaimed "liberals", a "conservative" is anybody who disagrees with them. How else do you figure than anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-drugwar, pro-BillOfRights libertarians are classified as "hard right-wingers" by the "liberals" in this thread?

 

[Scotteq]

You are a very confused person.

You say 'no one has made a case'. But what case is needed? What case would you want?

People's lives being saved, the long-estabished idea of the government protecting workplace safety, for example, you just ignore, like you showed them wrong.

I happen to support the policy you call 'more logical' - banning smokers - but banning smoking in the workplace is not 'illogical', especially when banning smoking is infeasible.

Your attack on his logic is ironic - you are the one who has a poor understanding of it.

In fact, you are making nothing more than a childish 'poopyhead' name calling post.

As pointed out in that thread: The businesses you would regulate are not the providers of the cigarette smoke, while the regulations you would use are aimed at regulating business processes that may endanger workers.

I understand what he is saying: The problem is he is unfortunately attacking the wrong entity, and using the wrong set of rules to do it.

I understand why, too: Smoking is legal, and so he doesn't have direct means to attack it. Therefore he wants to use a back door approach to accomplish his goal. The hyperbole about workers being forced to breathe carcinogens because the business allows the practice of smoking on the premises is just a smokescreen to justify the twisting of workplace safety regulations in ways they weren't intended.

Like I said: If you/he wants to regulate the behavior of smokers, then regulate the behavior of smokers. Forcing businesses to do it for you is stupid because the business aren't forcing these people to smoke.

Again - Your logic is indicative of impaired brain function, since you are unable to even identify where the cigarette smoke is coming from.


Besides - If people's health were really the concern, then why not make cigarettes illegal outright? Or does the billions of dollars in tax revenue justify the continuation of the practice... as long as "they" don't do it in your presence?

 

[bamacre]

This kind of thinking is natural for folk seeking to exempt themselves from the topic of discussion. Naturally, you personally must be some kind of exception.

This kind of thinking is natural for folk seeking to lump me into a group demonized by topic of discussion. Naturally, someone who is fiscally conservative yet socially liberal can't be an exception. It would be easier for you if I were the real conservative you imagine, an old bible thumping redneck who hates gays and doesn't want guvment meddlin' with my medicare.

 

[bamacre]

As self-proclaimed "liberals", a "conservative" is anybody who disagrees with them. How else do you figure than anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-drugwar, pro-BillOfRights libertarians are classified as "hard right-wingers" by the "liberals" in this thread?

Damnit, you beat me to it.

 

[Red Dawn]

This kind of thinking is natural for folk seeking to lump me into a group demonized by topic of discussion. Naturally, someone who is fiscally conservative yet socially liberal can't be an exception. It would be easier for you if I were the real conservative you imagine, an old bible thumping redneck who hates gays and doesn't want guvment meddlin' with my medicare.

No kidding, I know Whitey007 and you're no Whitey007

 

[Zebo]

What an idiotic study. I was a hard core liberal in my college years..mainly because it got the chicks. As I get older I am to looking at the world differently. Not conservative but at least more conservative. My brain did not change. If anything I am dumber and not as quick.


Liberals have their own worries too. Liberals worry about global warming, killing of some POS snail on Ca beaches, police state etc.

 

[Zebo]

 

[Orignal Earl]

It's fear AND denial.
They go hand in hand here.
scream no no no scream no no scream

 

[Scotteq]

Ice Cream?

 

[sandorski]

Conservatism is a Mental Health issue and should be treated as one.

Help a Conservative, give him his Meds.

 

[Craig234]

As pointed out in that thread: The businesses you would regulate are not the providers of the cigarette smoke, while the regulations you would use are aimed at regulating business processes that may endanger workers.

I understand what he is saying: The problem is he is unfortunately attacking the wrong entity, and using the wrong set of rules to do it.

I understand why, too: Smoking is legal, and so he doesn't have direct means to attack it. Therefore he wants to use a back door approach to accomplish his goal. The hyperbole about workers being forced to breathe carcinogens because the business allows the practice of smoking on the premises is just a smokescreen to justify the twisting of workplace safety regulations in ways they weren't intended.

Like I said: If you/he wants to regulate the behavior of smokers, then regulate the behavior of smokers. Forcing businesses to do it for you is stupid because the business aren't forcing these people to smoke.

Again - Your logic is indicative of impaired brain function, since you are unable to even identify where the cigarette smoke is coming from.


Besides - If people's health were really the concern, then why not make cigarettes illegal outright? Or does the billions of dollars in tax revenue justify the continuation of the practice... as long as "they" don't do it in your presence?

You're crossing from bad logic to dancing with idiocy, as you ignore the corrections to your errors.

Your post is filled with loaded phrases reflecting the poor logic you use.

Worse, I'm having to repeat myself to basic, simple points I already made to answer your repetitions already answered.

For example:

Besides - If people's health were really the concern, then why not make cigarettes illegal outright?

What part of my repeated posts saying to eventually ban smoking are you not getting?

This is not a backdoor approach. You have your little semi-informed theory, and you are not just expressing it but making offensive, baseless attacks.

Which makes a fool out of yourself when you are quite wrong.

Workplace safety and smoke is a legitimate issue, not a 'backdoor' way to sneak the policy in. You say nothing to disprove that but make the allegation.

Your argument is like saying that banning tobacco ads is some conspiracy about the media just using tobacco as an excuse - as a backdoor - when clearly it had its own reasons to be done, and yes, that was the lesser approach politics supported when it was done.

'Backdoor' is you trying to use a loaded word when you lack a point.

Your logic is crappy and your manners are as bad, and you seem to me to have no interests in anything but attacking with a poor position, so this is a waste of time.

 

[PeshakJang]

Conservatism is a Mental Health issue and should be treated as one.

Help a Conservative, give him his Meds.

Pay attention, the opposite was already proven true.

But you suffer from the same condition as Craig, only you have some other impediment which limits the majority of your interpersonal interactions to short, primitive, sometimes one-word responses. Perhaps someday science will be able to help you, too.

 

[PeshakJang]

You're crossing from bad logic to dancing with idiocy, as you ignore the corrections to your errors.

Your post is filled with loaded phrases reflecting the poor logic you use.

Worse, I'm having to repeat myself to basic, simple points I already made to answer your repetitions already answered.

For example:

Besides - If people's health were really the concern, then why not make cigarettes illegal outright?

What part of my repeated posts saying to eventually ban smoking are you not getting?

This is not a backdoor approach. You have your little semi-informed theory, and you are not just expressing it but making offensive, baseless attacks.

Which makes a fool out of yourself when you are quite wrong.

Workplace safety and smoke is a legitimate issue, not a 'backdoor' way to sneak the policy in. You say nothing to disprove that but make the allegation.

Your argument is like saying that banning tobacco ads is some conspiracy about the media just using tobacco as an excuse - as a backdoor - when clearly it had its own reasons to be done, and yes, that was the lesser approach politics supported when it was done.

'Backdoor' is you trying to use a loaded word when you lack a point.

Your logic is crappy and your manners are as bad, and you seem to me to have no interests in anything but attacking with a poor position, so this is a waste of time.

Wow... who could have foreseen such a lab as ATPN, where scientific evidence could be presented, I can form a theory based on that evidence, and Craig could prove me right, all in the same thread, in the span of a day.

Fruitfly234

 

[umbrella39]

Such a large fear center some sign up for several sock puppet accounts to try and make their fucked up opinions look more mainstream. Pretty pathetic how rampant this practice has become. See above ^

 

[Scotteq]

You're crossing from bad logic to dancing with idiocy, as you ignore the corrections to your errors.

Your post is filled with loaded phrases reflecting the poor logic you use.

Worse, I'm having to repeat myself to basic, simple points I already made to answer your repetitions already answered.

For example:

Besides - If people's health were really the concern, then why not make cigarettes illegal outright?

What part of my repeated posts saying to eventually ban smoking are you not getting?

This is not a backdoor approach. You have your little semi-informed theory, and you are not just expressing it but making offensive, baseless attacks.

If you want to ban smoking, the direct approach is to ban smoking.


If you want to ban smoking, the backdoor approach is to regulate 3rd parties (businesses, in this case) into doing the work of forcing smokers to go elsewhere.


I am so very sorry that your amygdala is so underdeveloped that you are incapable of understanding that.

Workplace safety and smoke is a legitimate issue, not a 'backdoor' way to sneak the policy in. You say nothing to disprove that but make the allegation.

Workplace safety is a legitimate issue. We have rules and regulations to ensure businesses do not create unsafe environments that endanger workers. The machinery used has to pass certain criteria. Chemicals are reviewed for safer alternatives, and proper handling techniques are recommended/enforced where safe alternatives aren't available. Fire codes... Maintenance to ensure ongoing safety... etc etc etc..


The logical fallacy arises because Workplaces DO NOT MAKE INDIVIDUALS SMOKE. The smoking is not part of the business process. It is an otherwise perfectly legal activity which individuals choose to partake of.

You would have a case if smoking were somehow part of the business process. But it is not. You are attempting to regulate a 3rd party and force them to enforce your ideas on where/when people can use tobacco.


And I've said: If you want to regulate smokers, then regulate SMOKERS and not <the people who own the places where smokers might decide to go>.


Again: I am so very sorry that your amygdala is so underdeveloped that you are incapable of understanding that. It must be terrible to live in such a world.

 

[JSt0rm]

stuck on stupid

 

[PeshakJang]

Such a large fear center some sign up for several sock puppet accounts to try and make their fucked up opinions look more mainstream. Pretty pathetic how rampant this practice has become. See above ^

That smaller anti-social anterior cingulate of yours is showing

 

[PeshakJang]

stuck on stupid

As already pointed out:

Despite the importance of the amygdalae in modulating memory consolidation, however, learning can occur without it, though such learning appears to be impaired

 

[Scotteq]

stuck on stupid

Right - Because the idea that regulating people other than the ones causing the problem makes so much sense?




Your town doesn't pass a law forcing your neighbors to make you clean up after your dog, right? That's stupid: Why?? It's not your neighbor's dog!

YOU are the one with the dog, so the town makes YOU clean up after it. If YOU don't do that, then the town goes after YOU. This is common sense.

Likewise: It makes no sense that employers should be responsible because people smoke.

If YOU smoke, then YOU should be the one to bear the responsibility and regulation regarding YOUR smoking.

It's that simple.

 

[Zebo]

One trick the Nazis did to the Jews, is try to make them look subhuman using "science." IMO this whole thread treads on dangerous ground.

Boosting feelings of superiority, and righteousness of creed is a sign of fanaticism.