Research: The intellectual differences between liberals and conservatives

[Crackerjack]

Fearing the advance of technology is techno-phobia, fearing a specific technology is just fearing a specific technology.

Not saying rail systems replace buses as a whole, but if what you say is true, would not cargo buses be better than cargo trains?

Cargo bus:

Cargo Train:

Cargo bicycle:

 

[Photonic]

Cargo bus:

Cargo Train:

Cargo bicycle:

Brilliant!

 

[westwall]

Let me know the next time you make it to a distant location faster than a train when you are using a bicycle or by walking.

So long as it's not a direct train a bicycle will beat them. If the trains don't have to stop then they're faster.

 

[rdean]

No, it's a Pew study of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Flacaltenn skewered this study here.

It's full of crap.

Nothing was "skewered". Just someone who disagreed with the study, but no counter argument. Not one of any worth.

But let's look at some facts:

You can go online and find all kinds of organizations dedicated to science but founded by different social and ethnic groups. Societies of Scientists made up of "Gays, blacks, Hispanics, women, and so on". But the only ones made up of conservatives or Republicans are pushing "magical creation over evolution" or "science is a faith" or "climate change is a conspiracy". Why do right wing clowns still insist scientists must be Republicans and Conservatives? Next, they'll be telling us the Republican Party isn't 90% white.



Cosmic Log - Climate controversy spotlights GOP stands on science

Yes, it was skewered, and you look like an utter imbecile every time you trot out that nonsense.

But, in your defense, you've never minded looking like an utter imbecile.

It's only nonsense when there are "facts" proving it to be nonsense. You think if you "proclaim" something it's "true". So far, the "facts" prove your proclamations to be merely hot air laced with small amounts of spittle colored a curious yellow.

 

[Photonic]

Let me know the next time you make it to a distant location faster than a train when you are using a bicycle or by walking.

So long as it's not a direct train a bicycle will beat them. If the trains don't have to stop then they're faster.

Well, the point was distance over time. Shorter distances it is better to walk or ride a bike, etc.

Certainly yes. But the sheer volume of cars on the road in Southern California would be greatly lowered with a good rail system.

I live here, I know the horrors of traversing the 2 4-hour blocks of rush hour a day.

 

[daveman]

Indeed it's a tough job. There are some scary people out there who drive trucks, though. Not just the serial killer types (like the one who recently operated in TN), but their health. Many of them are not very healthy...at all!

I've seen everything from a trucker in ventricular tachycardia (a cardiac rhythm incompatible with life), to one with fly larva in his legs.

There are some very safe ones; and there are some who are downright scary.


Not hating, man. Just stating facts.

Oh, understood, certainly. There are just way too many truck drivers on the road to expect they'd all be 100% safe to drive.

Now imagine how many would have to be on the road if we didn't have trains transporting some of those goods? We would have to build thousands of new roadways at an incredible expense.

New roads? Why? Are there buildings someplaces that don't have roads running by?

Dood, c'mon. You're reaching.

 

[westwall]

His partisanship precludes it...I'm shocked he didn't bring race into it.

Give him time. When he sees that his 6% comment isn't getting any traction, he'll bring race into it.

To be fair, that isn't really a lie. It's the National Science Foundation's statistics of its own members.

Yes, but it's also a self selecting group and maybe they weren't exactly honest in their responses. Certainly in my academic experience the hard sciences tended to be populated more by conservatives then liberals. The soft sciences it was the opposite. I'm a geologist and I'm fairly conservative, my wife's a psychologist and surprise surprise she's very liberal.

 

[Photonic]

Give him time. When he sees that his 6% comment isn't getting any traction, he'll bring race into it.

To be fair, that isn't really a lie. It's the National Science Foundation's statistics of its own members.

Yes, but it's also a self selecting group and maybe they weren't exactly honest in their responses. Certainly in my academic experience the hard sciences tended to be populated more by conservatives then liberals. The soft sciences it was the opposite. I'm a geologist and I'm fairly conservative, my wife's a psychologist and surprise surprise she's very liberal.

I never said those statistics applied outside of the foundation that it was taken from.

 

[daveman]

Nothing was "skewered". Just someone who disagreed with the study, but no counter argument. Not one of any worth.

But let's look at some facts:

You can go online and find all kinds of organizations dedicated to science but founded by different social and ethnic groups. Societies of Scientists made up of "Gays, blacks, Hispanics, women, and so on". But the only ones made up of conservatives or Republicans are pushing "magical creation over evolution" or "science is a faith" or "climate change is a conspiracy". Why do right wing clowns still insist scientists must be Republicans and Conservatives? Next, they'll be telling us the Republican Party isn't 90% white.



Cosmic Log - Climate controversy spotlights GOP stands on science

Yes, it was skewered, and you look like an utter imbecile every time you trot out that nonsense.

But, in your defense, you've never minded looking like an utter imbecile.

It's only nonsense when there are "facts" proving it to be nonsense. You think if you "proclaim" something it's "true". So far, the "facts" prove your proclamations to be merely hot air laced with small amounts of spittle colored a curious yellow.

Sheer projection, derp. Shall I remind you once again about the time you posted a picture of a polluted Chinese river and claimed it was in Texas?

You're a liar, derp. All you do is lie.

 

[westwall]

There is also the point that every technophile I have EVER known has been conservative. (Not necessarily republican)

Also if we don't work on things like the light rail now, the technology will never advance to the point where it would be better than the old shit it is replacing.

Imagine if they had never build the car because at first it was more trouble than a horse and far more costly?

There you go.

Can you explain how light rail will ever replace buses? It runs on tracks, do you think they will develop a way for the train car to lay its own tracks when there is an accident so that it can go a different way? The problems with light rail lay in the rails, not the cars. Trains are obsolete, yet you are arguing in favor of them because they might find a way to make rails change paths or something.

As for technophobes all being conservative, anecdotal evidence only proves that you can tell stories. The people I know who oppose new technology, like nuclear power, are all liberals. I can actually provide examples, if you like, or you could just admit I am right.

Fearing the advance of technology is techno-phobia, fearing a specific technology is just fearing a specific technology.

Not saying rail systems replace buses as a whole, but if what you say is true, would not cargo buses be better than cargo trains?

What you perceive as fear I take as concern over an inefficient system.

 

[Photonic]

Oh, understood, certainly. There are just way too many truck drivers on the road to expect they'd all be 100% safe to drive.

Now imagine how many would have to be on the road if we didn't have trains transporting some of those goods? We would have to build thousands of new roadways at an incredible expense.

New roads? Why? Are there buildings someplaces that don't have roads running by?

Dood, c'mon. You're reaching.

Oh, how do you propose to handle the hundreds of thousands of new trucks that would be forced onto the roads to deliver the cargo across the US?

 

[daveman]

To be fair, that isn't really a lie. It's the National Science Foundation's statistics of its own members.

Yes, but it's also a self selecting group and maybe they weren't exactly honest in their responses. Certainly in my academic experience the hard sciences tended to be populated more by conservatives then liberals. The soft sciences it was the opposite. I'm a geologist and I'm fairly conservative, my wife's a psychologist and surprise surprise she's very liberal.

I never said those statistics applied outside of the foundation that it was taken from.

Rderp has, repeatedly. That makes him a liar.

 

[Photonic]

There you go.

Can you explain how light rail will ever replace buses? It runs on tracks, do you think they will develop a way for the train car to lay its own tracks when there is an accident so that it can go a different way? The problems with light rail lay in the rails, not the cars. Trains are obsolete, yet you are arguing in favor of them because they might find a way to make rails change paths or something.

As for technophobes all being conservative, anecdotal evidence only proves that you can tell stories. The people I know who oppose new technology, like nuclear power, are all liberals. I can actually provide examples, if you like, or you could just admit I am right.

Fearing the advance of technology is techno-phobia, fearing a specific technology is just fearing a specific technology.

Not saying rail systems replace buses as a whole, but if what you say is true, would not cargo buses be better than cargo trains?

What you perceive as fear I take as concern over an inefficient system.

If it is shut down before it is able to be fully realized, it will remain inefficient.

 

[westwall]

Cargo Train:

1. I have never had anything delivered to my doorstep by a cargo train. You?

2. Cargo trains are not light rail.

3. Were you all proud of yourself for thinking up the concept of the "cargo bus"?

1. When was the last time you have cargo delivered to your doorstep from one of these "busses."

2. The premise remains absolutely the same.

3. Just because you can't think of a good argument doesn't mean you need to resort to that stupid unmoderated bullshit. Please stay on topic.


What this argument has shown me is that a mix of the two is what is necessary.

Today in point of fact.

 

[daveman]

Now imagine how many would have to be on the road if we didn't have trains transporting some of those goods? We would have to build thousands of new roadways at an incredible expense.

New roads? Why? Are there buildings someplaces that don't have roads running by?

Dood, c'mon. You're reaching.

Oh, how do you propose to handle the hundreds of thousands of new trucks that would be forced onto the roads to deliver the cargo across the US?

What new trucks? WTF are you talking about? Cargo trains aren't going away. Nobody's saying they should be shut down.

 

[Photonic]

Yes, but it's also a self selecting group and maybe they weren't exactly honest in their responses. Certainly in my academic experience the hard sciences tended to be populated more by conservatives then liberals. The soft sciences it was the opposite. I'm a geologist and I'm fairly conservative, my wife's a psychologist and surprise surprise she's very liberal.

I never said those statistics applied outside of the foundation that it was taken from.

Rderp has, repeatedly. That makes him a liar.

He's lying, I don't see what him lying has to do with me. He's being partisan about this. I'm attempting to remain by the side of facts, which is hard considering if you say something on this board slightly askew of someones current misconceptions you are attacked for it aggressively.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it's a Pew study of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Flacaltenn skewered this study here.

It's full of crap.

Nothing was "skewered". Just someone who disagreed with the study, but no counter argument. Not one of any worth.

But let's look at some facts:

You can go online and find all kinds of organizations dedicated to science but founded by different social and ethnic groups. Societies of Scientists made up of "Gays, blacks, Hispanics, women, and so on". But the only ones made up of conservatives or Republicans are pushing "magical creation over evolution" or "science is a faith" or "climate change is a conspiracy". Why do right wing clowns still insist scientists must be Republicans and Conservatives? Next, they'll be telling us the Republican Party isn't 90% white.



Cosmic Log - Climate controversy spotlights GOP stands on science

No Windbag, it's not a lie.

A lie is "magical creation".

A lie is "science is a faith".

A lie is "climate change is a conspiracy".

A lie is "more than 6% of scientists are Republican".

THOSE are lies.

If you go to right wing universities, the majority don't teach "evolution" or teach the minimum to be accredited. They teach "Natural Science". You know, "bees pollinate flowers" and "the green stuff in plants turns sunlight to energy". Anything touching on evolution, they go to great lengths to avoid.

I've put up enough links to know this is true.

It is a lie because you said it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 6% number is not a lie, but it is an internal number and is altogether meaningless.

It is a lie, rdean got his numbers from a phone in survey of the AAAS, not from the NSF.

It's not a lie, just a misunderstanding. I remember reading the poll was conducted by the NSF, I was mistake, it was actually the AAAS. That does not invalidate my point.

I will accept that you made a mistake, I also accept that the number is completely meaningless, something I actually demonstrated to rdean the first time he pulled it on me.

 

[daveman]

I never said those statistics applied outside of the foundation that it was taken from.

Rderp has, repeatedly. That makes him a liar.

He's lying, I don't see what him lying has to do with me. He's being partisan about this. I'm attempting to remain by the side of facts, which is hard considering if you say something on this board slightly askew of someones current misconceptions you are attacked for it aggressively.

I have not attacked you on this. You made a mistake, and admitted it.

 

[westwall]

Let me know the next time you make it to a distant location faster than a train when you are using a bicycle or by walking.

So long as it's not a direct train a bicycle will beat them. If the trains don't have to stop then they're faster.

Well, the point was distance over time. Shorter distances it is better to walk or ride a bike, etc.

Certainly yes. But the sheer volume of cars on the road in Southern California would be greatly lowered with a good rail system.

I live here, I know the horrors of traversing the 2 4-hour blocks of rush hour a day.

I used to. Cal Tech and all that. However, the buses remove far more people from the roads then light rail ever will. Light rail is an economic boondoggle who's sole advantage is a large bankroll that can be liberally tapped by those who know how.