Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows
Hi Stephen P. King Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-14, 13:21:52 Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows On 12/14/2012 9:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That? why the progressives hate any constraint, any law any definition that fixes things once and for all. That's because it is their job to represent the reality that nothing in the universe is fixed once and for all - except the universe itself. HEY! ?? Demonizing the opposition is not welcome here! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal. Conservative debate tactics are to *always* make it personal to avoid talking about the issues respectfully. I have seen this time and again. Look back at your own messages here. Did you post a link about a politically neutral topic and have a Liberal say that you must be a Right Winger and how that makes your thinking clouded by patriarchal racist idiocy? No. That did not happen. Instead, you politicize this for no reason, repeatedly making weird hostile remarks that have no basis in science or philosophy, and then accuse Progressives of taking it personally. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 12/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-12-14, 13:21:52 *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows On 12/14/2012 9:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That� why the progressives hate any constraint, any law any definition that fixes things once and for all. That's because it is their job to represent the reality that nothing in the universe is fixed once and for all - except the universe itself. HEY! �� Demonizing the opposition is not welcome here! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/XbwmO-pwu7QJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows
On 12/15/2012 1:04 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal. Sadly, so it seems. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows
2012/12/15 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 12/15/2012 1:04 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal. Sadly, so it seems. I must side with Craig here... what is sad is your ways of debating here. Quentin -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows
How about this: Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them. Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other, but unfortunately it costs money (usually a fortune) to create a demo. So liberals need to listen seriously to the conservatives. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-14, 13:46:06 Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows On 12/14/2012 5:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: This response is the hallmark of a progressive worldview, and adhere perfectly to my definition: Hate to the established and aim to his destruction because it is an obstacle for something better that still don? exist. But no matter what is it, progress will bring ?t. That? their core believef. What nonsense.? A strawman man for Alberto to hate.? He wants to see every change as destruction and every change as motivated by hate.? Progress is by simple definition of the word going from the worse to the better.? Every conservative always supposes that they know the one Truth and so it cannot be improved upon; they are the true believers - and that applies to the political left Maoist/Communists as well as the political right Royalist/Papist/Fascists.? They all used their power to consolidate and gain more power. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:41:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 1:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal. Conservative debate tactics are to *always* make it personal to avoid talking about the issues respectfully. I have seen this time and again. Look back at your own messages here. Did you post a link about a politically neutral topic and have a Liberal say that you must be a Right Winger and how that makes your thinking clouded by patriarchal racist idiocy? No. That did not happen. Instead, you politicize this for no reason, repeatedly making weird hostile remarks that have no basis in science or philosophy, and then accuse Progressives of taking it personally. Dear Craig, Please link some examples. Let me present you with a counter-example to your claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3LnVa7zXgc You might consider Penn Jillette to be a progressive, but he would disagree... [By 1994] Newt World was now far-flung, from GOPAC to the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee; the Friends of Newt Gingrich campaign committee; a weekly TV show on the conservative cable TV network, National Empowerment Television, and a think tank called the Progress and Freedom Foundation. Its messages were coordinated with talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and with Christian Coalition groups. [...] [...] Mr. Gaylord is one of the brains behind Gopac ... . [He] wrote its how-to textbook, which urges challengers to *go negative early and never back off. They must sometimes ignore voters' main concerns because important issues can be of limited value. *The book suggests looking for a minor detail to use against opponents, pointing to Willie Horton as a good example. Though it says a positive proposal also can be helpful, it counsels candidates to consider the consequences: Does it help, or at least not harm, efforts to raise money? Mr. Gingrich has called the book absolutely brilliant. Even more has been written about the most famous Gopac document, ... a memo by Gingrich called Language, a Key Mechanism of Control, in which the then-House minority whip gave candidates a glossary of words, tested in focus groups, to sprinkle in their rhetoric and literature. For example,* it advised characterizing Democrats with such words as decay, sick, pathetic, stagnation, corrupt, waste, traitors*. (LA Times, 12/19/94, pages A31) (from http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/29/002.html) I have heard Penn speak before. I would say his positions are mostly Right-leaning Libertarian but socially Left-leaning Libertarian. Which part of the video should I watch? Penn's ok. He's a blowhard though. Does he insult Beck? Because Beck is not ok. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/VxHVjUN6ALIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows
On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote: How about this: Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them. Dear Roger, No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine over their utopia in the past. Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other, but unfortunately it costs money (usually a fortune) to create a demo. So liberals need to listen seriously to the conservatives. They should listen more to each other and stop the childish recriminations,demonizing and tribalism, IMHO. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote: How about this: Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them. Dear Roger, No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine over their utopia in the past. I would agree with that, but the thing is, the former may or may not be possible but the latter is certainly impossible. What is there better to do than to try to push civilization in the direction of a future utopia? What could be more destructive and foolish than to try to undo what has happened and put future back in a box? Craig Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other, but unfortunately it costs money (usually a fortune) to create a demo. So liberals need to listen seriously to the conservatives. They should listen more to each other and stop the childish recriminations,demonizing and tribalism, IMHO. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Ydy9ATa3GFMJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows
On 12/15/2012 2:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:41:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 1:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal. Conservative debate tactics are to *always* make it personal to avoid talking about the issues respectfully. I have seen this time and again. Look back at your own messages here. Did you post a link about a politically neutral topic and have a Liberal say that you must be a Right Winger and how that makes your thinking clouded by patriarchal racist idiocy? No. That did not happen. Instead, you politicize this for no reason, repeatedly making weird hostile remarks that have no basis in science or philosophy, and then accuse Progressives of taking it personally. Dear Craig, Please link some examples. Let me present you with a counter-example to your claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3LnVa7zXgc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3LnVa7zXgc You might consider Penn Jillette to be a progressive, but he would disagree... [By 1994] Newt World was now far-flung, from GOPAC to the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee; the Friends of Newt Gingrich campaign committee; a weekly TV show on the conservative cable TV network, National Empowerment Television, and a think tank called the Progress and Freedom Foundation. Its messages were coordinated with talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and with Christian Coalition groups. [...] [...] Mr. Gaylord is one of the brains behind Gopac ... . [He] wrote its how-to textbook, which urges challengers to *go negative early and never back off. They must sometimes ignore voters' main concerns because important issues can be of limited value. *The book suggests looking for a minor detail to use against opponents, pointing to Willie Horton as a good example. Though it says a positive proposal also can be helpful, it counsels candidates to consider the consequences: Does it help, or at least not harm, efforts to raise money? Mr. Gingrich has called the book absolutely brilliant. Even more has been written about the most famous Gopac document, ... a memo by Gingrich called Language, a Key Mechanism of Control, in which the then-House minority whip gave candidates a glossary of words, tested in focus groups, to sprinkle in their rhetoric and literature. For example,*it advised characterizing Democrats with such words as decay, sick, pathetic, stagnation, corrupt, waste, traitors*. (LA Times, 12/19/94, pages A31) (from http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/29/002.html) I have heard Penn speak before. I would say his positions are mostly Right-leaning Libertarian but socially Left-leaning Libertarian. Which part of the video should I watch? Penn's ok. He's a blowhard though. Does he insult Beck? Because Beck is not ok. Craig Watch the whole thing, at least for context. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows
On 12/15/2012 2:46 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote: How about this: Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them. Dear Roger, No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine over their utopia in the past. I would agree with that, but the thing is, the former may or may not be possible but the latter is certainly impossible. What is there better to do than to try to push civilization in the direction of a future utopia? What could be more destructive and foolish than to try to undo what has happened and put future back in a box? Craig Hi Craig, How about we drop the entire idea of utopias and work together to solve the problems that we have with the tools that we know work (as they have worked before in similar situations). Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes or some such... -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:44:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 2:46 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote: How about this: Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them. Dear Roger, No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine over their utopia in the past. I would agree with that, but the thing is, the former may or may not be possible but the latter is certainly impossible. What is there better to do than to try to push civilization in the direction of a future utopia? What could be more destructive and foolish than to try to undo what has happened and put future back in a box? Craig Hi Craig, How about we drop the entire idea of utopias and work together to solve the problems that we have with the tools that we know work (as they have worked before in similar situations). That is what Progressive politics is all about. That is how you move toward a better society. I have never heard them use the word utopia or perfect society though. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes or some such... That's what I'm saying. Hanging on to slavery, apartheid, colonialism, etc*was a mistake *. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/0cVPlHnAqKkJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:31:18 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 2:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:41:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 1:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal. Conservative debate tactics are to *always* make it personal to avoid talking about the issues respectfully. I have seen this time and again. Look back at your own messages here. Did you post a link about a politically neutral topic and have a Liberal say that you must be a Right Winger and how that makes your thinking clouded by patriarchal racist idiocy? No. That did not happen. Instead, you politicize this for no reason, repeatedly making weird hostile remarks that have no basis in science or philosophy, and then accuse Progressives of taking it personally. Dear Craig, Please link some examples. Let me present you with a counter-example to your claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3LnVa7zXgc You might consider Penn Jillette to be a progressive, but he would disagree... [By 1994] Newt World was now far-flung, from GOPAC to the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee; the Friends of Newt Gingrich campaign committee; a weekly TV show on the conservative cable TV network, National Empowerment Television, and a think tank called the Progress and Freedom Foundation. Its messages were coordinated with talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and with Christian Coalition groups. [...] [...] Mr. Gaylord is one of the brains behind Gopac ... . [He] wrote its how-to textbook, which urges challengers to *go negative early and never back off. They must sometimes ignore voters' main concerns because important issues can be of limited value. *The book suggests looking for a minor detail to use against opponents, pointing to Willie Horton as a good example. Though it says a positive proposal also can be helpful, it counsels candidates to consider the consequences: Does it help, or at least not harm, efforts to raise money? Mr. Gingrich has called the book absolutely brilliant. Even more has been written about the most famous Gopac document, ... a memo by Gingrich called Language, a Key Mechanism of Control, in which the then-House minority whip gave candidates a glossary of words, tested in focus groups, to sprinkle in their rhetoric and literature. For example,* it advised characterizing Democrats with such words as decay, sick, pathetic, stagnation, corrupt, waste, traitors*. (LA Times, 12/19/94, pages A31) (from http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/29/002.html) I have heard Penn speak before. I would say his positions are mostly Right-leaning Libertarian but socially Left-leaning Libertarian. Which part of the video should I watch? Penn's ok. He's a blowhard though. Does he insult Beck? Because Beck is not ok. Craig Watch the whole thing, at least for context. Ok, I watched the whole thing, and I will admit that Beck is not as bad in that video as I have seen him before. He seems more open minded than he was in the past, although maybe he's just making common ground with Penn. Still, they are both project the stereotypical ugly American attitude, loudly explaining how the world should run. They're wrong in underestimating the problem of explosive wealth inequality and Beck's whole blackboard geopolitical reductionism is grotesque to me. Anyhow, if you want some opposing video fare, have you seen the Rachel Maddow election night video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVwXA7sHUlE It's three minutes. I'm generally not much happier with Democrats than Republicans, but she lays out some reasons why there might have been a difference between a Romney win and an Obama win. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/C-_HI6e25pAJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain studyshows
On 12/15/2012 6:33 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Watch the whole thing, at least for context. Ok, I watched the whole thing, and I will admit that Beck is not as bad in that video as I have seen him before. He seems more open minded than he was in the past, although maybe he's just making common ground with Penn. Still, they are both project the stereotypical ugly American attitude, loudly explaining how the world should run. They're wrong in underestimating the problem of explosive wealth inequality and Beck's whole blackboard geopolitical reductionism is grotesque to me. Anyhow, if you want some opposing video fare, have you seen the Rachel Maddow election night video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVwXA7sHUlE It's three minutes. I'm generally not much happier with Democrats than Republicans, but she lays out some reasons why there might have been a difference between a Romney win and an Obama win. I have seen it. I thought Maddow was trying hard not to spike the football... I frankly don't have much use for the Maddow's or the O'Reilly's of the world. They are HOINFODAMAN. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jimb7PoXVQE BAM! Look at that Chevi Go! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
