The fatal flaw of Republicanism

[DarrinS]

I'm just glad that RG does not suffer from confirmation bias and is not the partisan hack he accuses others of being.

[RandomGuy]

Don't ask me to prove a negative.

If you think the Democrats live in an information bubble of some sort that doesn't let information in, and don't occasionally change their minds when given good reasons to, feel free to show me how.

If you want to do that, you will have to define "quasi-socialism", and then start showing general thoughts from prominent Democrats along those lines.

I have accused you of lazy cynicism. All I need for that criticism to stick is for you to not bother backing up your case. Personally, I would like to be wrong about that. I am wrong occasionally. Up to you man.

Hmm.. I see a decided lack of defining and supporting. Guess I was not wrong about at least that much.

[DarrinS]

This thread has ZERO bias tbh

[RandomGuy]

I'm just glad that RG does not suffer from confirmation bias and is not the partisan hack he accuses others of being.

I am indeed being partisan. You win the prize.

I indeed have confirmation bias, somewhere, I'm sure.

The problem with your statement here, is that:

1) I can admit when Democrats get wrong, do bad things, or have bad policies
2) I can admit when Republicans get things right, do good things, and have good policies.

I can name a few things for both.

Hacks don't do that kind of things.

As for confirmation bias, that is a lot harder to defeat. One simply has to not totally filter out things one is not predisposed to agree with, and always try to figure out the underlying assumptions that you make when forming opinions. (edit) and evaluate evidence for that.

Analyzing others' is a really good place to start.

I am not, however, going to pretend I don't have a viewpoint. I do.

[101A]

One would then have to figure out if, on balance, one's beliefs has an overall net positive or negative effect.

Whatever one's belief; the fact that they have been elected president means that their belief, whatever it may be, is considered, at least for the moment, to most Americans, positive. Current Christian president included.

That, is probably where we would part ways.

Please 'splain

Do you think that an atheist would make a good/bad president? If so, what basis would you have for that?

Depends on the Atheist. If he is a crazy wild eyed screaming liberal? Bad President. If he is a thoughtful, non-ideologically rigid, reasonable person? Could be a good president.

[RandomGuy]

This thread has ZERO bias tbh

My observation of one of your collective problems.

That you think honest, frank criticism is "bias", supports the thesis of the OP. tbh

Do you think that the conservative movement really gives consideration to data that contradicts various viewpoints?

Can you provide some example of where conservatives have, based on new information, collectively changed their minds about something?

I can find a *few* examples to the contrary.

[RandomGuy]

Please 'splain

I imagine Pheno would probably say that being an atheist would automatically make someone a bad president.

I would not.

I would not, though, put words in the mans mouth, and let him accept/reject that thesis.

I would for the most part agree with your other statement. A firebrand atheist would not make a good president, in much the same way that Pat Robertson would not make a good president.

[101A]

My observation of one of your collective problems.

Do you think that the conservative movement really gives consideration to data that contradicts various viewpoints?

I don't think liberals are any (or certainly not much) better at this. How many government programs have to go exponentially over-budget and NOT accomplish what they were supposed to accomplish before a liberal will admit that they might be a mistake?

For instance, it is pretty apparent that, taken in total, the government programs designed to help people in poverty, are creating a permanent cycle of poverty; including increased illegitimate births, increased crime and, despite our best ($$$$$) efforts, sinking education results.

Liberals don't even pause to consider that that MIGHT be true.

[symple19]

Hacks don't do that kind of things.

.

You're a ing hack. Just own it and quit deluding yourself into thinking otherwise

[RandomGuy]

I don't think liberals are any (or certainly not much) better at this. How many government programs have to go exponentially over-budget and NOT accomplish what they were supposed to accomplish before a liberal will admit that they might be a mistake?

For instance, it is pretty apparent that, taken in total, the government programs designed to help people in poverty, are creating a permanent cycle of poverty; including increased illegitimate births, increased crime and, despite our best ($$$$$) efforts, sinking education results.

Liberals don't even pause to consider that that MIGHT be true.

It might be true that "government programs designed to help people in poverty, are creating a permanent cycle of poverty; including increased illegitimate births, increased crime and, despite our best ($$$$$) efforts, sinking education results".

I would be all for scrapping any program that, on balance, did more harm than good, if given some reasonable data to show that is the case.

The problem with such sentiment though, is that, exactly true to my opening thesis, when I talk to conservatives and libertarians about social programs, they almost universally NEVER admit ANY good that those programs do.

If you want to talk about ultimate efficacy, i.e. costs and benefits, and only consider costs and negatives, are you looking at all the information that you need to gauge efficacy?

[RandomGuy]

You're a ing hack. Just own it and quit deluding yourself into thinking otherwise

As I said before, I have a specific viewpoint.

Can you accept that someone might have a point of view and be an advocate for that point of view and NOT be a hack?

Why or why not?

I.e. what differentiates someone with an opinion from a hack?


(edit)

I would point out, that I am willing to consider the possibility here that I am being a hack. , if symple can make a good case, I might even change my mind/actions, as I would prefer not to be. I will not, however, simply accept the charge simply because someone on the internet says so.

[DarrinS]

I don't think liberals are any (or certainly not much) better at this. How many government programs have to go exponentially over-budget and NOT accomplish what they were supposed to accomplish before a liberal will admit that they might be a mistake?

For instance, it is pretty apparent that, taken in total, the government programs designed to help people in poverty, are creating a permanent cycle of poverty; including increased illegitimate births, increased crime and, despite our best ($$$$$) efforts, sinking education results.

Liberals don't even pause to consider that that MIGHT be true.

Damn good point, but that may be my confirmation bias talking.

[RandomGuy]

Damn good point, but that may be my confirmation bias talking.

I would point out that it is a testable hypothesis. Get cracking.

Show me the evidence, and I will be voting for whomever can and will break the cycle of poverty, whatever the cause. It is too important to treat with unquestioned dogma, IMO.

[101A]

It might be true that "government programs designed to help people in poverty, are creating a permanent cycle of poverty; including increased illegitimate births, increased crime and, despite our best ($$$$$) efforts, sinking education results".

I would be all for scrapping any program that, on balance, did more harm than good, if given some reasonable data to show that is the case.

The problem with such sentiment though, is that, exactly true to my opening thesis, when I talk to conservatives and libertarians about social programs, they almost universally NEVER admit ANY good that those programs do.

If you want to talk about ultimate efficacy, i.e. costs and benefits, and only consider costs and negatives, are you looking at all the information that you need to gauge efficacy?

You're not a real liberal; you're just a Democrat because you hate Republicans. There is still a streak of rationality to your views (however partisan they've been as of late).

[101A]

I would point out that it is a testable hypothesis. Get cracking.

Show me the evidence, and I will be voting for whomever can and will break the cycle of poverty, whatever the cause. It is too important to treat with unquestioned dogma, IMO.

We'll work on the data/hypothesis for the platform of our new party. I think you would admit that the two parties as they exist have staked out positions (and rely on cons uencies based on) their positions on the current programs to such a degree that any REAL reform would be difficult, if not impossible.

[RandomGuy]

You're not a real liberal; you're just a Democrat because you hate Republicans. There is still a streak of rationality to your views (however partisan they've been as of late).

Thanks.

I think... (bemused)

[boutons_deux]

"any REAL reform would be difficult, if not impossible"

aka, America is ed and Un able

(c) 2010 - 2012 Unauthorized use prohibited)

[DarrinS]

"any REAL reform would be difficult, if not impossible"

aka, America is ed and Un able

(c) 2010 - 2012 Unauthorized use prohibited)

RG's views on steroids.


Lol @ the copyright on your sig

[101A]

(c) 2010 - 2012 Unauthorized use prohibited)

ing Classic.

[101A]

"any REAL reform would be difficult, if not impossible"

aka, America is ed and Un able

(c) 2010 - 2012 Unauthorized use prohibited)

Can I get authorized (I have used it)

[boutons_deux]

Can I get authorized (I have used it)

Please give me your legal forwarding address. My lawyers will be in contact.

[Phenomanul]

Sure, I would agree.

One would then have to figure out if, on balance, one's beliefs has an overall net positive or negative effect.

That, is probably where we would part ways.

Do you think that an atheist would make a good/bad president? If so, what basis would you have for that?

It depends on many factors. The references for atheist leaders have been rather lackluster, and downright scary... you know, your typical run-o-the-mill totalitarian tyrant.

Joseph Stalin
Mao Zedong
Kim Jong Il and father Kim Il-sung
Nicolae Ceaușescu

I would venture to throw in some latin american dictators who only claimed to be "religious" in order to pander to the masses but whose tyrannical actions were anything but.

[RandomGuy]

It depends on many factors. The references for atheist leaders have been rather lackluster, and downright scary... you know, your typical run-o-the-mill totalitarian tyrant.

Joseph Stalin
Mao Zedong
Kim Jong Il and father Kim Il-sung
Nicolae Ceaușescu

I would venture to throw in some latin american dictators who only claimed to be "religious" in order to pander to the masses but whose tyrannical actions were anything but.

(facepalm)

So your definition of "atheist" leader is anyone who does evil things, gotcha.

This is a rather worn path, don't you think?

You say X is an atheist, someone else say Y is a religious person, both X and Y are obviously horrible people, ad nauseum.

In the end, by taking a rather biased sample, you have only really proven the point of the OP albeit rather unwittingly.

[RandomGuy]

...

[boutons_deux]

It depends on many factors. The references for atheist leaders have been rather lackluster, and downright scary... you know, your typical run-o-the-mill totalitarian tyrant.

Joseph Stalin
Mao Zedong
Kim Jong Il and father Kim Il-sung
Nicolae Ceaușescu

I would venture to throw in some latin american dictators who only claimed to be "religious" in order to pander to the masses but whose tyrannical actions were anything but.

your wastrel boy dubya self-proclaimed to be a born-again Christian, and yet murdered 100Ks US military + Iraqis with his war-for-oil, so that proves Christians are evil leaders, and "Christian" USA slaughtered a few 100K Japanese, non-Christian non-combattants with two atomic bombs. Go Christians, y'all be doing God's work!