I am in a pretty good mood myself.
It's about 75 degrees, I am in a country full of beautiful women, what's not to be happy about?
Interesting article I found on the internets.
since much of Republican talking points are designed to trigger visceral fear reactions, which the amygala is involved in. It's surprising that they did not mention the function of the cingulate gyrus, so I linked a description of it. Note the reference to "rational cognitive functions, such as reward anticipation, decision-making, empathy."
The real important point is that we need both areas to be fully functioning optimally. Perhaps that's where the Independents come into the picture! Ya think?
If there weren't an internet we wouldn't learn about these kinds of studies. 90 students? WTF next thing you know some study will equate penis size with economic success. LOL
If it is hard wired, people would not change opinons, which is common enough to raise questions.
Also, there is a major flaw to the theory. They use, as one example, the fact that "right-wingers had a more pronounced amygdala - a primitive part of the brain associated with emotion."
The problem with this is that to classify political decisions based on emotion depends on your view. For example, I think that many liberal positions are based on emotion. Bi-lingual education, self-esteem issues, the desire to provide some - I SAID SOME - welfare - is to me - I SAID TO ME - very emotional.
For me, a logical position on these issues would be on the side usually favored by conservatives. Even welfare fits this. Everyone WANTS to help. But conservatives are more likely to take a "teach a person to fish" view. (That is an example only.)
Likewise, when ever I debate some issues in person with my lib friends they ofter slip into a sob story - I have a cousin who blah, blah, blah. Desparately trying to mold public policy becuase of their cousin's sympathetic problem.
Long live the king.
This is your typical pure insult post. You post is just a pure personal attack with no substance.
The type of thing I complained about in defense of WW, Pri, and GG a couple posts ago. I didn't like the pure gratuitious attacks on them, even though we often disagree.
The funniest this is that it is almost in agreement with what you posted before, but you are too thick to see that it was pretty close in substance.
You do not address one thing I wrote. Just a snide subject line. Deep thinking.
It really does not reflect well on an argument of post when the only thing you can to is spout a slogan -"there is no god" - or toss out a cliche - "capitalist lackey."
The level of intellectual ability needed for that type of debate is rather low.
It is like your "ass-fact" line. I say something you don't like, and rather than dispute it with a reasoned "That is not true because A, B and C....." you toss out a meaningless label "ass-fact" as if that is a clever retort that resolves issues.
WOW. Charlie said "ass fact." Must be false.
Here is something for you to think about. Bark, Puppy, bark.
-- Modified on 12/29/2010 5:45:33 PM
not appreciate the painstaking detail and the impeccable logic that goes into them. WTF Phil thats no insult. I just HATE lawyers. If there is a hell it was probably built by lawyers and I think you and your ilk should all take up residence there as soon as possible. BTW some of my best clients are lawyers. LOL
I don't care for lawyers either. But if that is the heart of it, I am amazed at the shallowness. I mean, let's just judge people by the group they are in with no regard to whether it applies to the individual.
Ghandi was a lawyer, as were Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Darrow.
It isn't that you don't go into "painstaking detail." It is just there is no detail. Pure slogan. "There is not god." WOW. HOW PROFOUND "Lackey" WOW, that's deep. "
And now, "I just hate lawyers." How deep is that? And original.
Too cute, pups.
you must but my meanings are clear and unencumbered with nonessential details. It possible to hate a profession and appreciate the value that its practitioners bring to the table being that hate is an emotional asset and value is quantifiable and can be seen on the bottom line. To put it simply Phil
your posts usually have no informational value for me but there is always hope Phil.
Most posts around here dont require much detail and the terminology that I use is democratic and can be
understood by all who care to read my posts. There are no hidden agendas, trick answers or facts that appear to have been pulled from my ass Phil. Now run along and peddle your banal posts to those who know nothing better.
I will call you shallow if you think it was "encumbered with nonessential details."
If you look at my OP and analyze it in terms of writing, I stated my premise in two or three simple sentence. I backed it up with two or three examples. Each of them consisted on two or three sentences at the most. I think it is pretty damn good writing to state an premise and give three examples in 12 sentences.
They may not have any "informational value" for you, but you have can't explain why the premise or examples are flawed. As typical, you have to get into insults and vulgarity. Between the two styles, each must chose his own.
Finally, I will peddle my posts to you. As you may know, they are free to read. Anyone how clicks in my customer, and you are one of my more loyal ones.
As we say in H'wood. Doesn't matter that much if the review is bad, as long as people come to see it.
Trusting you will remain my loyal reader. Bark, Pups.
Phil I, King of Banal,
I see you can count sentences. Bravo for you. Phil you are hysterically and irrationally anti communist. All of your posts are infected with this flaw. No amount of good writing can hide your toxic bias. I think you might be trying to hide a bit of racism as well. I cant put my finger on it but it's there.
Racist also. Hysterically, irrational, infected, toxic. Add a snide, "You can count sentences," when you raised length of posts.
As for content, weaker still. "all of my posts" is a hyperbole, as the ones here never mentioned the Worker's Paradise.
Such great ability to analyze. You forgot xenophobic and anti-handicap.
Keep reading.
Latter on Phil I will print all of your posts and use them to line my bird cages with. After that I will compost the cage liners and use them for plant food.
Would you really do that? It makes me so sad.
Once again, though, a sincere, non-sarcastic Happy New Year. May it bring happiness even if we don't get along. (Sorry. I am just in a good mood, and want to spread some joy.)
I am in a pretty good mood myself.
It's about 75 degrees, I am in a country full of beautiful women, what's not to be happy about?
Don't be sad Phil. Happy New Year. I mean it.
Reagan mastered this by bringing out the strong father figure frame from union workers who held this frame strongly in the home, despite that they held a nurturing mother frame at their jobs. Thus the frame "family values" was born.
Similarly, Barack Obama and the Dems won strong victories in 2008 largely because as the economic situation became more dire, the desire for a nurturing mother frame became more desirable.
Linguist George Lakoff has done a lot of work in this field if you'd like to read more about it.
The problem with this is that to classify political decisions based on emotion depends on your view. For example, I think that many liberal positions are based on emotion. Bi-lingual education, self-esteem issues, the desire to provide some - I SAID SOME - welfare - is to me - I SAID TO ME - very emotional.
To illustrate this, people with Anti-Social Personality Disorder have a non-functioning or faulty empathy center in their brain. They have virtually no ability to feel compassion for anyone. However, they can be very emotional, and usually the dominant emotion is anger.
Emotion is reactionary. Consider the last time someone "hurt your feelings". Your chest feels heavy, and your skin may become calmy. A similar visceral reaction often comes when someone lies, and we have lie detectors that can measure these changes in the skin. With anger, your scalp may become hot, as the surrounding tissue becomes engorged with blood, thus the throbbing vein on the forehead.
The point being is that there isn't much rationalizing of emotions. It's all rather reactionary on a biological level. These reactions are less common, and far less strong with empathy, particularly in how it's applied to politics. There's a reason why you'll see a lot of screaming and shouting happening on Fox. It's all very emotional.
-- Modified on 12/30/2010 6:39:59 AM
In your reply to my statement that if this were so people would not change their opinions as much as you do. You refer to Reagan and Obama.
I would submit that neither caused people to "change" their views. Reagan appealed to values that most people already had.
Likewise, I think Obama's big mistake was assuming his victory showed people supported all his views. I think many people voted for him because of the economy. They didn't vote for other aspects of his platform, like health care or Iraq. I think it was primarily a one-issue win, and no minds were "changed." It isn't that people went from capitalist to socialist. Indeed, he downplayed any "restribution tenencies. The disappointment is the fact that the might be the change people didn't want.
Reagan mastered this by bringing out the strong father figure frame from union workers who held this frame strongly in the home, despite that they held a nurturing mother frame at their jobs. Thus the frame "family values" was born.
Similarly, Barack Obama and the Dems won strong victories in 2008 largely because as the economic situation became more dire, the desire for a nurturing mother frame became more desirable.
Linguist George Lakoff has done a lot of work in this field if you'd like to read more about it.
The problem with this is that to classify political decisions based on emotion depends on your view. For example, I think that many liberal positions are based on emotion. Bi-lingual education, self-esteem issues, the desire to provide some - I SAID SOME - welfare - is to me - I SAID TO ME - very emotional.
To illustrate this, people with Anti-Social Personality Disorder have a non-functioning or faulty empathy center in their brain. They have virtually no ability to feel compassion for anyone. However, they can be very emotional, and usually the dominant emotion is anger.
Emotion is reactionary. Consider the last time someone "hurt your feelings". Your chest feels heavy, and your skin may become calmy. A similar visceral reaction often comes when someone lies, and we have lie detectors that can measure these changes in the skin. With anger, your scalp may become hot, as the surrounding tissue becomes engorged with blood, thus the throbbing vein on the forehead.
The point being is that there isn't much rationalizing of emotions. It's all rather reactionary on a biological level. These reactions are less common, and far less strong with empathy, particularly in how it's applied to politics. There's a reason why you'll see a lot of screaming and shouting happening on Fox. It's all very emotional.
-- Modified on 12/30/2010 6:39:59 AM
Republicans lose their backbone.
Why they want to go back to the middle ages. Makes sense.
-- Modified on 12/30/2010 5:55:28 PM
Liberalism = Peodphelia
Synopsis : Because Liberal policies fuck our kids.
Sample Size for Study: 1
Why not, about as credible as the survey you cited 