Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a Liberal, and What is a Conservative?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 254 (137847)
08-29-2004 1:40 PM


You're a liberal if you think that things suck because we haven't changed them yet.
You're a conservative if you think things suck because we changed them.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 254 (138269)
08-30-2004 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Darwin Storm
08-30-2004 8:59 PM


That is, most of the questions, in the manner they are asked, provide a postive or negative bias to the questions.
Isn't that the point? Wouldn't the questions have to be biased in order for the survey to detect your bias?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-30-2004 8:59 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-30-2004 9:20 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 84 of 254 (138281)
08-30-2004 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Darwin Storm
08-30-2004 9:20 PM


I am talking about the bias introduced by the manner in which the questions are asked.
Yeah, I just don't see the bias in either of those questions - to me, they ask very factual questions and describe very real scenarios.
The question makes an assumption here, which if inccorect, completely invalidates teh entire question.
Well, if you don't believe that the public's attention span is decreasing, why not just put "strongly disagree"? Wouldn't that constitute disagreement with the question?
I don't see the bias. I see the asking of questions from different positions on the ideological scale; which is exactly the point of the quiz.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-30-2004 9:20 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Coragyps, posted 08-30-2004 9:34 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 86 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-30-2004 9:38 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 87 of 254 (138291)
08-30-2004 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Darwin Storm
08-30-2004 9:38 PM


If the questions aren't clear and nuetral as possible, than the writers inherinatly influence the survey results.
But what they're measuring is your response to political ideology. I don't see how you could measure that with neutral questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-30-2004 9:38 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-30-2004 9:50 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 90 of 254 (138306)
08-30-2004 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Darwin Storm
08-30-2004 9:50 PM


please read my post 75 and please tell me where I am wrong in my critque of that that question.
Ok, well, your objection to the term "globalization" doesn't seem to have a great deal of merit; that word has a very real economic meaning and refers, as far as I'm aware, to the trends that lead to reduction in barriers to trade; not just simply global trade.
Moreover the question is correct in that it draws a distinction between corporate motivations and the good of humanity; the purpose of a corporation is to maximise shareholder profit, not improve conditions for humanity. In fact in so much as profit requires the accumulation of resources, and resources are not infinite, maximising shareholder profit means convincing people to give you resources. That's the essence of trade, of course.
In short I find it a fair question; the interests of enormous multi-national corporations are not generally aligned with truly positive outcomes for all humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-30-2004 9:50 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-30-2004 11:08 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 91 of 254 (138309)
08-30-2004 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by joshua221
08-30-2004 9:43 PM


Just to clarify
This reminds me of the relationship in the show "third rock from the sun" between the lady Mary and the guy who does the Family Guy voice for the baby. LOL
Seth McFarlane is not on Third Rock, nor does John Lithgow provide any voices for The Family Guy.
You seem to be doing exactly what you are condemning buzsaw about...
No, Schraf supports her statements with evidence, and has never, to my knowledge, abandoned threads simply because she wasn't "winning".
I've seen Buz do that a lot, though.
Don't persecute buzsaw for not taking a biased test
I'm not sure we've seen any evidence that the test is truly biased, though. For instance, everybody who's taken it so far winds up pegged down in Lefty land, including me.
If the test was biased in favor of liberalism or whatever, wouldn't our scores all have wound up near the zero, in the middle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by joshua221, posted 08-30-2004 9:43 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by nator, posted 08-31-2004 9:14 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 106 by joshua221, posted 08-31-2004 2:46 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 119 of 254 (138625)
08-31-2004 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Darwin Storm
08-30-2004 11:08 PM


I would disagree with the terminology of globalization.
Ok, but like I said, your objections lack merit, since they're based on definitions of "globalization" that are less specific than how the term is used by economists.
However, last I checked, humanity is not some amporhus entity and neither are corporations.
I don't recall where I said they were, or implied that.
"Humanity" is the set of all humans. "Corporations" are corporations. I don't understand what you consider "amorphorus" about these words, or unclear in regards to their terminology.
The question you must then ask is where do you want to see the benefits of such trade.
I want to see the benefits of trade for all humans ("humanity"), not simply benefits for the few and harm for many, many others.
However, I would also argue that modern corporations and industrialization also aid in the rapid production of cheap goods that can vastly help people, aka humanity, by meeting needs and services at a fraction the price it would without such buisness organizations.
Assuming a currency-barter market is the economic system in play, yes. Corporations benefit those who have money. I don't think that's in dispute.
But that's not "humanity". That's only some humans. Not everyone has money, and not every corporation or act of industrialization means cheaper goods. In many examples, goods become more expensive as a result of corporate control; for instance, the music industry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-30-2004 11:08 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by nator, posted 09-01-2004 9:56 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 120 of 254 (138626)
08-31-2004 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Mammuthus
08-31-2004 5:53 AM


In order to push down prices, a lot of labor intensive jobs are outsourced to places with no worker protection so that in effect, slave or indentured servant like conditions are used to produce the goods and other people benefit from the workers not being paid a living wage.
Right. People like Walmart because they cut labor costs and sell things at lower prices.
The problem is, the people who work at Walmart don't make enough money to shop at Walmart. So, even if prices race to the bottom, they still don't race fast enough to keep up with the commensurate decline in wage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Mammuthus, posted 08-31-2004 5:53 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 121 of 254 (138628)
08-31-2004 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Darwin Storm
08-31-2004 12:53 PM


First off, multinational companies aren't inherentaly a bad trend.
What would it take to prove to you that they are, out of curiosity?
You don't believe that it's possible that the very existence of a multinational, profiting as it does off of large-scale economic disparity between two economies, has an overall negative effect on both economies, regardless of the intent or ideological outlook of the management of the company?
What I'm saying, basically, is that while holes are not inherent evil, it's definately bad to have one in your gas tank. The consequences of the hole will be bad no matter the intent for having the hole in your tank.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-31-2004 12:53 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-31-2004 10:46 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 254 (138630)
08-31-2004 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by joshua221
08-31-2004 2:46 PM


I have given 3 examples of why the test was biased is previous (the first) thread disscusing it.
Ok, but we covered that. Yes, the questions project a detectable political slant; that's because they're trying to measure your own slant via your reaction to the presented slant.
You can't do that without projecting different slants.
No if the test wasn't biased we WOULD have been pegged in the middle, see it?
No.
If the test was biased in "favor" of leftists, for instance, then us liberals who took it would have been clustered around the middle. Had the test been biased in favor of conservatives, then conservatives who took it would have wound up in the middle.
Neither case seems to be happening. Folks who self-identify as liberal wind up in the liberal section of the results, and if any of you conservatives would take the test, we'd know if the test was biased in your favor or not. It certainly doesn't have a liberal bias or else all us liberals would be clustered around the middle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by joshua221, posted 08-31-2004 2:46 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by joshua221, posted 08-31-2004 9:27 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 127 of 254 (138660)
08-31-2004 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by joshua221
08-31-2004 9:27 PM


what if the test was biased liberally
Then liberals would score in the middle of the graph. That's what it would mean for the poll to have a liberal bias; it would interpret strong liberal positions as moderate, instead.
if the test was biased conservitively, liberals would be pegged right, conservatives way right..
No. If the test had a conservative bias, again, conservatives would score in the middle as "moderates" and liberals would be very left.
"Bias" in this case is the presentation of political skew as moderation or normality; that's why a liberally-biased test puts liberals in the middle.
The liberals were pegged way left, eggactly the way I said a liberally biased test would produce results.
You've misunderstood the effect of bias, apparently. The fact that liberals wind up on the liberal side of the poll is evidence that the test is not biased, not that it is.
If the test were biased in favor of liberals, liberals would show up as moderates. Since they don't, that's evidence that the test is reasonably fair.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by joshua221, posted 08-31-2004 9:27 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Loudmouth, posted 09-01-2004 12:57 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 163 by joshua221, posted 09-01-2004 2:35 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 129 of 254 (138663)
08-31-2004 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Darwin Storm
08-31-2004 10:46 PM


Well, it would take extensive debate and data which weighed postive aspect of the economics of such companies versus their waste.
Just their waste? Would you consider the economic impact of being "bridged" the way multinationals do as evidence, as well?
I'm no economic expert, I'll tell you that right now. Among all the things that I've spoken about, that's the one I'm probably the least qualified to discuss. I have a mental model where economies are like containers of different fluid levels, each level representing the total amount of money in the system.
When you bridge the systems, money flows between them until they equalize, like a syphon. That process of equalization might have positive or negative effects or both; I don't know. I haven't been able to think it through that far. But it seems obvious to me that multinationals are bridging the high-powered economic system of the US with the low-powered systems of other nations; the result seems to be that American workers are being paid like they live in Sri Lanka (for instance) but being charged for goods and services like the live in the US. The reverse is apparently true for the Sri Lankans, to some extent.
I believe that the end product of globalization is beneficial; that would mean a totally interconnected global economy, where food costs the same in the US as it does in Sri Lanka and wages are the same no matter where you go.
Getting to that point, however, is apparently destructive for many people.
However, you make alot of bold assertions in this statment, without any evidence.
I don't have the expertise to do anything but ask questions. It's enough to me that you recognize this as a possibility, as I do.
Be like me saying," if you have two unequal tanks of water, one virutally empty and the other overflowing, each servind different countries, wouldn't a hole be benificial with which to share such resources?
It's beneficial for the hole, who makes money off the flowing water. It's beneficial for the lower tank, who experiences a surge in buying power before the market adjusts to greater disposable income.
It sucks great big cock for the guys in the upper tank, who experience greatly diminshed wages in a market that hasn't caught up to lower wages. In the end, things go back to normal for everybody, maybe, but who knows how long that takes?
IF you want to debate the strenghts and weakness of the corporate entity, or even economic systems, I think that would make a wonderful topic.
Oof, I'd love to read such a topic, and maybe chime in with observations, but I don't have the expertise to maintain one side of such a discussion. I suspect you could interest someone in that debate, though, like Schraf or Holmes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-31-2004 10:46 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-31-2004 11:16 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 132 of 254 (138685)
09-01-2004 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Darwin Storm
08-31-2004 11:16 PM


As for economics, there isn't a fixed amount of economy.
Sure there is. In America, it's fixed at however much money Alan Greenspan decides will be in the economy.
It's a zero-sum game. You can't have more money without somebody having less.
100 years ago, the average life expentacy of the US citizen was less than 50 years, with living conditions in most areas only a few steps above what we would deem poverty
I'm glad that living conditions have improved, but there's much to be done. In Minneapolis, you can't afford a place to live if you work full-time at minimum wage. It takes two adults working full-time to put a roof over their heads, and they're still choosing between health insurance and food.
These are outrages. Something's wrong in a system where you can work full-time and still not have enough to pay the rent.
I agree, but that path is the best one we have so far.
Maybe. Now it seems like you're the one making the assertions.
Largely, I support globalization, because it prevents wars. But it's a grudging acceptance. I don't know that I'm sure it's the best path, but it's certainly the one we're on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-31-2004 11:16 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 12:55 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 134 of 254 (138697)
09-01-2004 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Darwin Storm
09-01-2004 12:55 AM


Actually, printed money has no value but what backs it.
Right, but that doesn't mean you get to print your own.
Hence, the amount of currency in the economy is fixed by the government.
You zero sum view is not only an oversimplfication, its wrong.
Well, I'm the first to admit that I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but there's only so much money, and the government decides how much that is. Right?
How is that not a zero-sum situation? If I want another dollar, someone has to give me one. I can't just print my own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 12:55 AM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by AdminAsgara, posted 09-01-2004 1:13 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 136 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 1:28 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 147 of 254 (138798)
09-01-2004 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Darwin Storm
09-01-2004 12:04 PM


However, all employment is volentary on both sides.
But clearly, it's voluntary to a lesser degree for the workers.
It's a well-understood principle that the worker and the employer are not on equal ground in regards to economic leverage. This forms the basis of our labor laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 12:04 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 12:26 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024