Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a Liberal, and What is a Conservative?
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 254 (138247)
08-30-2004 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by jar
08-30-2004 7:22 PM


Re: And the grid Buz?
quote:
Well, how should this question be reworded?
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations"
I (not being Buz) would reword it "If economic globalisation is inevitable, should their profits go to all employees and towards philanthropy rather than to those at the top of the organization."
I think the original question is reflecting the tendancy (and not unfairly) for companies to think more about profits than the effects of company policy on the people who work or are affected by the corporation.
In general, conservatives and liberals, as the terms are used in the US, tend to focus on social and foreign policy issues rather than on fiscal issues. Liberals tend to think less about universal morals and more about personal freedoms while conservatives want to instill moral values into society through legislation. It is the difference between being able to make a choice about how to live one's life (liberal) and what choices should be made available to people (conservative).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 08-30-2004 7:22 PM jar has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 254 (138265)
08-30-2004 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Darwin Storm
08-30-2004 8:43 PM


Re: And the grid Buz?
quote:
The original reference to economic globalization is silly, since most markets, due to transportation and communications, are already globalized to some degree. Additionally, humanity is such a pathetically vague term (since governments, corporations, individuals, dictorships, blah blah blah are all organizations of humans, ie humanity. Sloppy terminology at best.)
Totally agree.
quote:
Additionally, whenever you are talking about trade, the two primary groups involved are always producers and comsumers, (and that is true for inviduals or organziations.). Just me, but I think my question makes more sense.
What about employees? Where do they fit in? Should companies be allowed to cut jobs without warning in order to increase their profits? Should companies ruin retirement funds knowingly (Enron) in order to give CEO's the golden parachutes they require? Should safety and fair pay be considered a universal (world wide) right? I think this is also what the original question was trying to portray.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-30-2004 8:43 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-30-2004 9:05 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 254 (138481)
08-31-2004 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Darwin Storm
08-30-2004 9:05 PM


Re: And the grid Buz?
quote:
Employees, in operating in their jobs, are producers. However, you are no longer addressing the issue of the importance of consumer/producer.
Wouldn't you say that at least philosophically the employees at lower positions are looked at differently than the fat cats at the top of the corporate ladder? I don't remember Tyco having an ice sculpture that pissed out expensive vodka surrounded by winged dancers at the company picnic. While I may not be addressing the consumer/producer topic I am addressing the original, and nebulous, "betterment of humanity" in the original question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-30-2004 9:05 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-31-2004 7:18 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 254 (138612)
08-31-2004 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Darwin Storm
08-31-2004 7:18 PM


Re: And the grid Buz?
quote:
However, you are right in one regard, the oringal question does seem to pick out a bias of people if they favor a socialistic economy versus a capitalistic economy. The further we progress this debate, the clearer it becomes.
And that is the purpose behind asking biased questions or using biased language. If you are a conservative you will bristle at the words "globalization" and a corporation's "duty to humanity". A liberal will probably say "damn right they should" and ignore the biased buzzwords that they themselves use. Even the authors of the survey pretty much admit that their survey asks biased questions, but in the long run that is what it is about, finding bias by using bias as bait.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-31-2004 7:18 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-31-2004 8:13 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 254 (138622)
08-31-2004 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Darwin Storm
08-31-2004 8:13 PM


Re: And the grid Buz?
quote:
I am just going to leave it as we disagree. I think the proposititions are unclear, and without detailed methodology for how various equations contribute to variuos scores, I shall remain skeptical. Its too hard for me to take seriuosly any statistic or survey without understanding the methodology and scoring behind them.
I haven't taken it yet, but I don't expect it to be completely accurate. I am not making judgements, but I do find it interesting that conservatives have a tough time taking the survey for no other reason than the questions themselves. No one proposing that the survey is indicative of reality, at least from what I have read. I guess I will have to take the survey to save face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-31-2004 8:13 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-31-2004 9:59 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 254 (138814)
09-01-2004 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
08-31-2004 10:46 PM


quote:
No. If the test had a conservative bias, again, conservatives would score in the middle as "moderates" and liberals would be very left.
Actually, I think prophex has a point. If the test were liberally biased then conservatives would test as moderates to somewhat liberal. Let me explain with one sample question:
Do you think women should strive to serve their husbands, stay home, and raise at least five children?
Now, both conservatives and liberals would answer no to this question. However, if the survey had a liberal bias then those who answered "NO" would be classified as liberals and those that answered "YES" would be labelled as conservatives when they should actually be labelled as idiots. A liberal bias would want more conservatives to test as liberals in an effort to sway their vote towards liberal candidates. If people are given the false impression that their ideology is more liberal than it actually is it would be advantageous to the liberal movement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2004 10:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2004 1:35 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 254 (138834)
09-01-2004 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
09-01-2004 1:35 PM


quote:
Bias isn't found in the questions, though it can be a result of how the questions are phrased; the bias is in the scoring.
Not true. Bias can be found in the question by creating a situtation where the only choices are to side with the liberals or agree to an immoral position, an immoral position to both conservatives and liberals. For instance "Do you beat your wife on a regular basis?" If no, then you are a liberal. If yes, then you are conservative. However, if the "no" or "yes" scored as zero then I guess the scoring would be unbiased.
The bias is in assuming that conservatives are wife beaters, and therefore this is a fair question. This is definitely an extreme situation, but I think it illustrates my point. Those who made up this survey/test wanted people to "objectively" rank their actual ideology. If conservatives consistantly rank as moderates or slightly liberal this would be a boon for liberal parties hence the possible use of bias. I am not saying that the survey does use bias, only that the outcome of a biased test could be the opposite of what you are portraying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2004 1:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2004 2:09 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 254 (138839)
09-01-2004 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by crashfrog
09-01-2004 2:09 PM


Re: Not sure where the confusion is, here
quote:
Right, which would skew the scoring of liberals towards the middle. If people wind up being "forced" to agree with liberal positions, then more people put "agreement", and liberal positions appear more moderate.
And it would skew the conservatives towards the same moderate position since they are answering the same as a liberal. Those who would actually fall on the conservative side of such biased questions would be classified as conservative when in fact they do not share a common ideology with actual conservatives. I will agree that it moderates liberal extremism but it also mislabels conservative extremism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2004 2:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2004 2:24 PM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 165 by joshua221, posted 09-01-2004 2:40 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 254 (138867)
09-01-2004 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by crashfrog
09-01-2004 2:24 PM


Re: Not sure where the confusion is, here
quote:
But I have bias. Let's say I'm fairly tall and tired of being considered weird for it. So I use a measuring tape that I cut the first foot off of. That makes my measurement of everyone's height one foot taller than they are - more people who are not really tall are made to appear "tall", according to the "true" average. That throws off my scoring scale.
Perhaps we are talking past each other, hehe. Oh well. For shits and giggles I'll give this one more try and then we can agree to disagree.
Your above analogy is not comparable to what I am trying to portray. Changing you analogy, people with any height at all are called tall and those that can curl their tongue are considered short. In other words, by distorting questions so that both liberals and conservatives would answer the same wouldn't allow the question to differentiate between them, just as regarding everyone above 1 inch as being tall. By moving the scale to such a degree that even conservatives would agree with liberals would put both into a moderate position. Therefore, either liberals or conservatives ranking as moderate does not tell us the bias of the questions involved. And then again, I might just be talking out of my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2004 2:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2004 12:10 AM Loudmouth 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