Conservative's brains are more primitive (Page 2)
the real slim DEEPy: how does anyone know what part of the brain is primitive- do we have an up-and-running neanderthol brain somewhere to put under MRI? sounds like a self-serving asumption- not even sourced to any publication of scientific concensus, or even a single scientists name.
its really odd that conservatives have this stronger emotion structure, considering the liberals are the ones that win recruits with nothing but emotionally-charged rhetoric.
ever read any of marx's economic works? ...totally deviod of mathematics and full of emotional arguments which utelize any existing jealousy in the minds of the sympathetic. well, ya, theres a little "logic" thrown in- the fundamental assertion that central planning is supposed to do away with the inefficciencies of conventional managegment, but this is hardly "logical" to the objective observer.
any business school can tell you that micro-management is highly ineffective, and thats exactly what central planning necessitates- micro-management of the highest, and likely, the most inefficcient, magnitude. and THEN, as if federal micromanagement isnt bad enuf, you also have to consider the inefficiency of beurocrocy and red tape. seeing your tax dollars at work is enough to know that government is anything but efficient. seeing the "mixed market" systems of past and present socialisms and communisms (from the NEP middlemen of lenin's wartime economy to the post-mau "market socialism" of china) is further evidence that governental inefficiencies are so great, they must be counter-balanced by some level of capitalism. all things considered, this great "solution" of socialism is a "cure" that is more harmful than that which was said to be the "disease".
how bout the occupy movement? "the rich have too much, fukk them. WE'RE the 99%". again, pure emotion (jealousy, hate, chauvenism) from such a "highly-evolved" and, dare i say, sophistocated crowd. ill be damned if im part of their public-defecating, dirty-needle polluting, free-loading 99%. leave me out of it, please. call yourself the 0.001%, cause my 98.009% has some dignity about our bowel movements and discreteness about our vices. at worst, the bottom rung of my 98.009 is thankful for the aid of food stamps and public housing, and very well understands that begars can't be choosers, if they wish to maintain any vestige of credibility and/or respect.
liberal rhetoric is full of such class warfare, as stated above, as well as exemplified by rampant, emotionally- fueling allegations of any given type of "isms"- which have the great potential of mobilizing the "highly-evolved" masses, even with little to no basis in the reality of the situation. just point your finger and use an "ism", and your opponent is instantly and unquestionably reviled for life by the groups historically opressed by said "ism", and deemed highly suspect by said groups sympathizers.
charges of racism, sexism and other such forms of discrimination and opression are the liberals ultimate tool in class warfare, for opressed peoples are so scarred by the past, it takes absolutely no argument to convince them that this past lives into the present. time and again, tender wounds are open painfully wide and kept festering in the minds of historically opressed groups each time such an allegation is made- never allowing them to heal and keeping class tensions in the pre-civil rights era indefinitely.
a big part of liberal ideology is socialistic/progressive economics. economics is supposed to be a science, and is usually based on mathematics, but not socialism, not at all. you wont find any equasions or arithmatic in marxist literature, nor will you find any scientific data or sound logical arguments. the only other form of economics in existence that doesnt rely on extensive mathematics is the austrian school of thought, which considers economics a social science and approaches it with psychological techniques.
odd that the more "evolved" and less emotional liberal is so easily won over thru emotions. id say the entire study is pure self-serving conjecture, not to mention, it preys on the desire of man to see himself as superior. who wouldnt want to be percieved as highly evolved; thus, after reading this, what weak mind wouldnt play to the liberal adgenda in order to appear less "primitive"? no mathematics, no science, no logic, all emotions. this is REALLY the "more evolved" way of thinking?
the fallacy of this post is two-fold: one of ad hominem- attack to the character, as well as argumentum ad verecundiam- the appeal to authority. first, it is suggested that nameless scientific authorities have determined said brain area to be primitive, then, it is suggested that, specifically, conservatives are primitive. now, you have, "scientists say conservatives are primitive" and its a double-barrel shotgun of fallacies, aimed right at the pride of conservatives. you should be ashamed of yourself for providing such a cheap and invalid argument.
(Edited by the real slim DEEPy)
OCD_OCD: Stand back, Deep. The liberal anger train will be headed your way after that statement. LOL
chronology: Deep Old Chap, you only have to look at two regular contributors to these Forums to immediately be struck by the clear impression they are distinctly 'primitive' in their Posts along with their appearance. No names of course, they will go crying and wailing to the Mods. But I will give a hint Old Chap; 'spectacles'. These chaps both look like dock workers drinking partners in the less attractive slums of Glasgow. Both of them look like missing links, and both of them would need to remove their stained false teeth to tackle the greasy Burgers they would suck and gum at to consume. I often speculate what Pets these characters would keep. I found myself torn between choosing a cockroach and a rat as their companions of choice.
Sarcastic Dots: That quote was over people's interpretation of Marxism, not due to the political ideology he defined, which, like it or not, isn't liberal.
Perhaps you should use the quote within it's original context?
What is known as ‘Marxism’ in France is, indeed, an altogether peculiar product — so much so that Marx once said to Lafargue: ‘Ce qu’il y a de certain c’est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste.’ [If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist]
Or further still
"if that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist"
chronology: Sarcastic. You may be able to clear something up about Marx. I was listening to Michael Tsarion say that for thirty years after it was published, 'Das Capital' never had Marx's name as author, Engles was the name given as author. Seems odd, I know Engles and Marx were close friends, but why was Engles said to be the author of the book (if he was). I know Das Capital was only printed in German for the first 30 years (even in England you could only get copies in German, there were no English translations anywhere printed). Probably Queen Victoria read the book when it was first published. In Buckingham Palace, in fact in all her homes, she never spoke English, only German.
Sarcastic Dots: Are you asking about the English translation, or das kapital?
Where the English version is concerned I'd imagine it's because Karl Marx had died before the translation and the completion of his original work, let alone the various translations, so Engels credited himself for those versions. Obviously he didn't translate it himself, but he did carry out the vast majority of work.
I know the German version had Karl Marx as the author, at least.
chronology: Interesting. It just seemed odd that Engles not Marx had his name on the Book for the first 30 years. 'The German Workers Association' in Londons East End, which was a Club of German Workers living in London probably read the Book to any English folks there who may have been interested. Personally I have read Das Capital vol 1 twice, it is an enlightening book, but vol 2 is too mathamatical in contents, all about value increase from units of laboure added to material enhanced by machinery.
the real slim DEEPy: socialism is economically left, and it naturally swings to the authoritarian, being that a centralized economy necessitates big government. maxrist rhetoric is still prevalent in liberal/progressive economics, such as redistribution of wealth, class warfare and income disparity. dont forget, obama and most democrat mayors supported the occupiers.
chronology: Well Deep, you have answered the question then. No need to reply there hey? Capitalism sure aint given to centralisation is it? Manufacturing just by chance migrated to Chinese Industrial Zones, Call Centres just winged their way to India on a whim one wet Wednesday, Americas Merchant Marine just liked the fancy colours in the flags of countries like Liberia and Panama and decided to Register their ships there?
chronology: Well there you go Deep, you have the answer again, (what a guy, even O.J.Simpson never had an advocate as good as you are for Capitalism). Just wondering, who benefited from that Globalisation and removal of Tariffs? American Cities who have no Tax Revenue to pay for Services? Workers who have lost Jobs? Unions who have lost members?
the real slim DEEPy: globalism is liberal, but it has roots in a conservative economic theory- social credit economics- which declared that "full employment is the call to war"- in that industrial societies are TOO efficcient- leading to overproduction of either wealth (which causes war out of other nations' jealousy) or overproduction of arms (whigh enables the industrial country to wage war).
keynesianism picked up on this surplus inequlity idea, and lord keynes insisted on breaking down tarrifs and other nationalistic "protectionist" tactics.