On 12/16/2012 10:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 1:55:07 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/16/2012 12:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Yeah, but we happen to be siting in the 21st century
using the knowledge that has accumulated by science and so
forth to pass judgement on people that did not have our
current capacity and we can claim to not be bigoted? NO!
Who said anything about us not being bigoted? That doesn't mean
that conservatives were right on slavery, or Civil Rights, or
Women's Suffrage, or the Cold War, or McCarthyism, or Vietnam, or
the War on Drugs, or Trickle Down economics...I am hard pressed
to find a single example of Conservative policies that were not
ugly and prejudiced failures which were subsequently exposed as
worthless and swept under the carpet eventually. Even trying to
factor in my presumed bias - and some extra to cover my
unpresumed bias...what country in the world today is an example
of the success of Conservatism? What policy works? I'm sure that
there must be some. What are they?
Try this. Consider a number of cities in the US that have been
governed by predominantly Progressive policies and compare then,
apples to apples, to a number cities that have been governed
Conservatively with one stipulation: that Progressive policies are
those that Progressives are in fact in favor of and Conservative
Policies are those that are defined by Conservative people and
decide for yourself which kind of city you with to life in. If we
allow one side to define the terms of the argument, who is going
to win the argument?
I wouldn't know which cities have been governed which way or what the
differences are. There are big expensive cities and not as big, not as
expensive cities. Otherwise I don't see much difference in quality of
life in US cities, certainly none that I could attribute to any
particular leadership slant. I have not been to Houston but if I had
to guess I would say that it has developed under more consistently
conservative politics than San Francisco. I would choose to live in
San Francisco if I could afford it - but I can't because it is one of
the most desirable real estate markets in the world.
I have visited S.F. It was a trash heap, IMHO. My main point here
is that we at least are making judgements based on accessible data and
interpretational theories that have not been shown to be false. How many
times does it take to know for sure that running up debt is not how one
balances one's budget? We know that "expenditures almost always rise to
overcome added income", because there are no inherent bounds on
expenditures, while there are always inherent bounds on resources.
How does one overcome the problem of a insufficient sample
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization> in StatMech?
I don't wish to make decisions or reason for you.
Is there a sufficient sample to look at?
Do you want me to think for you? Learn to use your own brain!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at