Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


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 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

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 254 (138632)
08-31-2004 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
08-31-2004 9:15 PM


quote:
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.
I see what you are saying, but I disagree partially, what if the test was biased liberally, conservatives would be pegged left, liberals way left, if the test was biased conservitively, liberals would be pegged right, conservatives way right..
quote:
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.
What do you mean YOU conservitives I took the test and I do not consider myself conservitive. I was left. I answered the test the way I feel about the issues brought up.
The liberals were pegged way left, eggactly the way I said a liberally biased test would produce results.

"Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."
Ephesians 5:14

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2004 9:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2004 10:46 PM joshua221 has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 124 of 254 (138641)
08-31-2004 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by joshua221
08-31-2004 7:11 PM


Re: Just to clarify
so, taking that silver surfer down to the convention?
I have found that the middle is surprisingly elusive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by joshua221, posted 08-31-2004 7:11 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 254 (138644)
08-31-2004 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Loudmouth
08-31-2004 8:33 PM


Re: And the grid Buz?
actually, I came out pretty close to the middle, bit to the right and a bit downward. And I didn't have a problem with the questions as objectionable, just unclear. I am big on clarity. However, I am willing to concede the purpose of the test isnt to survey, but to give a possible rough placement of indvidual poliical persuasion, as long as they don't try and claim its scientific (without posting methodoloy for calculations.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Loudmouth, posted 08-31-2004 8:33 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 126 of 254 (138653)
08-31-2004 10:21 PM


Actually, it appears to be relatively unbiased. If you take the test and strongly disagree to every question you will end up at 0.00 on the Economic axis and 4.36 Libertarian. On the otherhand if you strongly agree with each question you end up at 0.00 on the Economic axis and 4.36 Authoritarian.
So although some people have said that the questions are biased, it actually looks like the test as a whole is pretty neutral.
edited to fix typo in figures.
This message has been edited by jar, 08-31-2004 09:51 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

  
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

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 254 (138661)
08-31-2004 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by crashfrog
08-31-2004 9:10 PM


What would it take to prove to you that they are, out of curiosity?
Well, it would take extensive debate and data which weighed postive aspect of the economics of such companies versus their waste. I am hardly one to say it is all one or the either. I like to base my views on evidence and facts. 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. Please let me know if your intersted. I am willing to discuss those issues with you at lenght and in detail on a different thread.
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?
Well, possible, yes. However, you make alot of bold assertions in this statment, without any evidence. I think, to look at the evidence, we probably would find postive and negative aspects of incorporation. Also, since corporations are run differently by various countries, it might be interesting to discuss the role of government in defining the coporate entity and if laws could be adjusted to improve such corporations, and what the costs of doing so would be.
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.
Poor analogy that corrisponds with your opinion, not evidence. 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? Just an example (not one that I neccessary agree or diagree with, because its such a poor analogy.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2004 9:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2004 10:58 PM Darwin Storm 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

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 254 (138668)
08-31-2004 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by crashfrog
08-31-2004 10:58 PM


Crash, I agree that some of your ideas have merit. For example, I admit there are some major errors in the way buisnesses are regulated. That doesn't mean all such buisness are bad, but the room for abuse and detriment are there, as well as the positives.
As for economics, there isn't a fixed amount of economy. For example, what is deemed the first world has seen a MASSIVE increase economically over the last two hundred years. Some of that was based off exploitation, but alot of it was based off increases in technology, economic developement, education, etc. The descrepencies in economies around the world stems partially from the reason that not every nation has followed a similar path. Its not that afganistan is worse than it was 200 years ago, but it is far worse than parts of the world today, because economic development and the prerequistites were never met or acheived. 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. If you look throughout history, there are major economic desparities between various cultures.
You even consider the end goal of globalization to be a postivie thing, but see it frought with bumps. I agree, but that path is the best one we have so far. We probably could improve on things, but we are delving into areas of social change that is quite unique to virtually any time in history, and therefore alot is still unknown. With regards to such a lack of knowledge, I believe our best bets are to examine the strengths and weaknesses of our approaches and debate them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2004 10:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2004 12:20 AM Darwin Storm has replied
 Message 150 by contracycle, posted 09-01-2004 12:43 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 131 of 254 (138682)
09-01-2004 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by joshua221
08-31-2004 7:10 PM


Re: Less sniping, more discussion please
I took it as "not directed at just prophex" with the 'as' dropped by accident

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by joshua221, posted 08-31-2004 7:10 PM joshua221 has not 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

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 254 (138694)
09-01-2004 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by crashfrog
09-01-2004 12:20 AM


Actually, printed money has no value but what backs it. Oringinnally, gold was used as a currency backer. The US, in the 50's I believe, changed to using the US economy as a guerantee on the currency. However, such currency has continued to expand in value because the economy behind it has expanded. If you were to print money without economic expansion, nothing happens but the decrease in the value of the dollar. If you expand the economy and the money supply, you don't see that drop. However, if you have a fixed amount of money, and the economy developes, you would see a deflation of the dollar. Add in population growth, and the value of the dollar wouuld skyrocket (which is as bad as high inflation, but for differnt reasons.) Of course, economics is a really in-depth subject, and most of it beyond my knowlege, but one thing I have noticed from what I have read, is that is extremely complicated. You zero sum view is not only an oversimplfication, its wrong.
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 that there is more to be done, but as I was pointing out, we are almost all still better off for the progress in the last 200 years in the US. If you have suggestions and viable alternatives, bring them up and discuss them. That is the whole point of democracy, change through peaceful and democratic means where possible.
Maybe. Now it seems like you're the one making the assertions.
I thought history is quite clear on this. If there is a more succesful economic/social model, please let me know. I didn't say that there arn't possible alternatives, but judging by economic and social devlopment, western civilazation has been one of the most successful socioeconomic systems in the history of mankind.
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.
I largerly support globalization, because, hopefully, it will benefit everyone in the long run. Previous schemes have failed, so its always worth trying new approaches. I agree it may not be the best path, but it seems to be better than other previous approaches. If there is a better alternative, we should consider it. However, I doubt there is a perfect system out there. Better.... possible, but nothing perfect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2004 12:20 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2004 1:07 AM Darwin Storm 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

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 135 of 254 (138699)
09-01-2004 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by crashfrog
09-01-2004 1:07 AM


Fascinating discussion gentlemen, but could it be taken to a new thread?

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe


http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2004 1:07 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Darwin Storm, posted 09-01-2004 1:28 AM AdminAsgara 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