Alf Bentley Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 11 minutes ago, Webbo said: If you look at these academic theories you'll notice there's a theme to them. "Right wing people are less intelligent", "Rightwingers are more attractive therefore they are more selfish", it's as if they're trying to prove that not being leftwing is a genetic fault, if you don't agree with us there's something wrong with you. And people wonder why nobody has any faith in so called experts? It's not real science, it's people making the evidence fit the preordained theory It's not a genetic fault, more like wilful and perverted deviancy. We need to understand a bit less and condemn a bit more. Right-wingers are just evil.
Webbo Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said: It's not a genetic fault, more like wilful and perverted deviancy. We need to understand a bit less and condemn a bit more. Right-wingers are just evil. Yeah, but gorgeous with it.
bovril Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 13 minutes ago, Webbo said: Yeah, but gorgeous with it. Right-wingers have far less sex than left-wingers. This is why they become right-wingers. Scientifcally proven.
Webbo Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 7 minutes ago, bovril said: Right-wingers have far less sex than left-wingers. This is why they become right-wingers. Scientifcally proven. That's because women are frightened of our extra large penises. FACT!
Innovindil Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 48 minutes ago, Buce said: I still call women 'birds' - my missus is my 'bird'. Screw political correctness. 1
Rogstanley Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 7 minutes ago, Webbo said: That's because women are frightened of our extra large penises. FACT! Old men getting their walking sticks confused with their penises again. Must be the cataracts. 1
Carl the Llama Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 Obviously attractive people are more likely to end up right-wing: When people are super nice to you all the time and you always get what you want without any hassle and only need to put half the work in to achieve promotions then it follows that you're less likely to develop any will to change a society that already falls over backwards for you. There is one caveat though: If your good looks get you work in the public eye, say as a film star, then you're more likely to end up a virtue signalling do-gooder lefty as a result of the requirement to give off the appearance of being a decent human being that the rest of the attractive people don't have to abide by.
Webbo Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 11 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Old men getting their walking sticks confused with their penises again. Must be the cataracts. Jealousy is such an ugly trait.
leicsmac Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 56 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: Wow. Yes. That makes total sense. I think you've nailed the whole politics debate. Close thread. Well, it's just one theory, but I think it reasonably salient. 49 minutes ago, Webbo said: If you look at these academic theories you'll notice there's a theme to them. "Right wing people are less intelligent", "Rightwingers are more attractive therefore they are more selfish", it's as if they're trying to prove that not being leftwing is a genetic fault, if you don't agree with us there's something wrong with you. And people wonder why nobody has any faith in so called experts? It's not real science, it's people making the evidence fit the preordained theory The funny thing is that what you describe there is itself a proof of the theory: people manipulating in order to ensure "their group" appears to be in the right and therefore more powerful. Genetics are what they are; if anything caring too much for other people outside your in-group (usually a left-wing quality) is that genetic fault because it means that the odds of you and your in-group surviving are reduced. The distinction of right or wrong doesn't come into it IMO - it's something that simply is, and what humans choose to do with it is open to all kinds of interpretation. Personally, I'm motivated most by humanity as a whole surviving long-term, but there are loads of other motivations. As an addendum, I'd agree with you about it being pseudoscience rather than hard science - but if people disregarding this means they then turn in disregard harder, more reliable science (such as climate physics, to use an oft-discussed one) and experts in that field then quite frankly they're doing themselves and the world a disservice by not applying any kind of nuance to their thoughts about science as a whole. That is just lazy, and smacks of not wanting to hear inconvenient fact rather than a legitimate gripe against scientific experts.
Webbo Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: Well, it's just one theory, but I think it reasonably salient. The funny thing is that what you describe there is itself a proof of the theory: people manipulating in order to ensure "their group" appears to be in the right and therefore more powerful. Genetics are what they are; if anything caring too much for other people outside your in-group (usually a left-wing quality) is that genetic fault because it means that the odds of you and your in-group surviving are reduced. The distinction of right or wrong doesn't come into it IMO - it's something that simply is, and what humans choose to do with it is open to all kinds of interpretation. Personally, I'm motivated most by humanity as a whole surviving long-term, but there are loads of other motivations. As an addendum, I'd agree with you about it being pseudoscience rather than hard science - but if people disregarding this means they then turn in disregard harder, more reliable science (such as climate physics, to use an oft-discussed one) and experts in that field then quite frankly they're doing themselves and the world a disservice by not applying any kind of nuance to their thoughts about science as a whole. That is just lazy, and smacks of not wanting to hear inconvenient fact rather than a legitimate gripe against scientific experts. As someone outside your group, I can't say I've noticed that.
Sharpe's Fox Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 I’m a leftist and probably the most selfish person i know.
leicsmac Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 Just now, Webbo said: As someone outside your group, I can't say I've noticed that. Hence my careful use of the word usually. It's not really big news that the way things are aligned now those on the left side of the political spectrum tend to act more in favour of people outside of their own line of sight that those on the right. Whether that's a good or a bad quality is again down to peoples opinion, but I will say that from the purely genetic point of view looking out for people beyond your own close group is a weakness. That's pretty well defined. 2 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said: I’m a leftist and probably the most selfish person i know. How do you reconcile that with the strong belief in social justice that you have? I'm intrigued.
bovril Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: How do you reconcile that with the strong belief in social justice that you have? I'm intrigued. He doesn't know anyone else. 1
Sharpe's Fox Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 7 minutes ago, leicsmac said: How do you reconcile that with the strong belief in social justice that you have? I'm intrigued. Listen to ‘Something Inside So Strong’ by Labi Siffre and you will understand 3
Guest Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 Tory rebels launch bid to keep UK in customs union with EU https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/02/tory-rebels-launch-bid-to-keep-uk-in-customs-union-with-eu?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Guest Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 Also, what do people make of the votes at 16 debate?
Alf Bentley Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 26 minutes ago, lifted*fox said: Supporting the left wing, I see. 1 3
Strokes Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 2 hours ago, Buce said: I still call women 'birds' - my missus is my 'bird'. Screw political correctness. The ball and chain
Izzy Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 9 minutes ago, toddybad said: Also, what do people make of the votes at 16 debate? As in allow people to vote at aged 16? I'm not sure your typical 16 year old would be intelligent and mature enough to understand what they're voting for. I'm nearly 46 and I still don't bloody understand it all....
Carl the Llama Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 Just now, Izzy Muzzett said: As in allow people to vote at aged 16? I'm not sure your typical 16 year old would be intelligent and mature enough to understand what they're voting for. I'm nearly 46 and I still don't bloody understand it all.... We already know that 52% of the voting public aren't, what harm's a few more? 1 2
Innovindil Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: We already know that 52% of the voting public aren't, what harm's a few more? You say that now, but when farage is pm you'll regret it.
Guest Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 10 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said: As in allow people to vote at aged 16? I'm not sure your typical 16 year old would be intelligent and mature enough to understand what they're voting for. I'm nearly 46 and I still don't bloody understand it all.... They're old enough to be in the armed forces and pay taxes though?
David Guiza Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, toddybad said: Also, what do people make of the votes at 16 debate? Very much in favour. The only logical argument I can see against is immaturity and lack of understanding, but that can be said for a fair few I would argue that the changes a political party makes would have a far greater effect on 16/17 year old between the ages of 16/17 and 21/22 than a pensioner, and I would never question their right to vote (May 2016 perhaps not included). Many people I went to school with were far more engaged in politics in GCSE and Sixth Form - thanks in some part at least to the study of Citizenship (PHSE) etc. I would be quite surprised to see a Tory Government make the change however, in the current circumstance, as I would guess that the majority of 16-18 year olds aren't currently Tory voters in waiting. Edited 2 February 2018 by David Guiza
Izzy Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 Just now, toddybad said: They're old enough to be in the armed forces and pay taxes though? True. And shag, drive a moped and get married with consent. I'm guessing you think that by implementing this, Labour would get more of the youth vote which could swing it Corbyn's way?
Recommended Posts