Re: OT - The Liberal Democrat War on Science


"Clark Magnuson" <c.magnuson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46A8AB76.2080005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Doug Miller wrote:


Yes, it is an assumption, and only that. Correlation does not imply
causation.
I'm guessing you've never had a college class in formal logic -- the
confusion
of correlation with causation is one of the elementary logical
fallacies. It
even has a name: post hoc ergo propter hoc, or in layman's terms, B
follows A,
therefore A caused B.


Such a well written post, but all for nothing.
Logic, facts, and science are not going to change liberals.
One can always out argue a liberal from a practical point of view, but
they can always out victim a conservative.

The liberals can put forth non sense like Gore's movie, and
conservatives can spent too much time refuting it. The Movie is still
being taught in public schools.

The way to fight liberals is on their home turf of emotions.

The point of view, liberal or conservative, is hysteretic. Hillary was a
lifelong conservative until she was required to argue the liberal point
of view a Wellesley.

What does it all mean?
Shock them with emotion.
I suggest shame, humor, and high drama.
You can't stop them from living emotion to emotion, but you can guide
their emotions away from Marxism.


Say what you want about Liberals all you want but considering the source
your claims don't demonstrate much merit. Why, because all I have to do is
know that your position is that global warming is a myth and I can say with
a high degree of certainty that you are a far right conservative. So say
what you will, but when it's almost all conservatives who refuse to accept
the findings of the scientific community you automatically know that it's
not a matter of science but ideology. Damn near all right wingers don't
believe in global warming. Funny isn't it that the right wing persuasion can
be so strongly correlated with a scientific viewpoint. Well, I guess not
because as well as not accepting the science on global warming they all
believe in an invisible supernatural being. That kind of shoots your
credibility on science all to Hell.

Hawke


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: (NBC) Proof that conservatives are...
    ... to rank themselves as conservatives or liberals on a scale of 1 to 5. ... Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as ... Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated ... science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: OT - The Liberal Democrat War on Science
    ... The liberals can put forth non sense like Gore's movie, and conservatives can spent too much time refuting it. ... You can't stop them from living emotion to emotion, but you can guide their emotions away from Marxism. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Are conservatives sleazier than liberals?
    ... > sphere of emotion and empathy. ... The idea that liberals "generally will not involve themselves in complex ... however, conservatives have been saying it in loud, emotional ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Why Liberals Are Smarter than Conservatives
    ... Why Liberals Are Smarter than Conservatives ... gloating: conservatives don't recognize science, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Why Liberals Are Smarter than Conservatives
    ... Why Liberals Are Smarter than Conservatives ... So now its been scientifically proven that liberals are smarter than conservatives. ... conservatives don't recognize science, ...
    (soc.retirement)