Baraka_Guru

There are a number of studies being released regarding brain research. See this TFP thread here for a discussion on brain structures and socializing: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...cializing.html

The study reported below makes an association between those with right-wing views and a larger area of the brain associated with fear:
Political views 'hard-wired' into your brain - Telegraph

The particular angle here is that the study points to brain structure as a signifier of political affiliation.

• Do you believe political associations are dictated by brain structures? i.e. are politics hardwired?
• Is it possible for an extreme conservative to become a deep-seated liberal or vice versa?
• Is there a "liberal gene"?
• Does this study lead you to believe that conservative politics are fuelled by fear?

I usually take these studies with a grain of salt. The brain is so complex, and human behaviour is still a largely misunderstood thing. However, these findings are interesting.

I tend to view conservatives as people who react to things they don't trust or believe in or accept into their own lives. Many tend to think that the acceptance of something new will somehow rip at the very fabric of society. Many disapprove of a lot of things, and it's difficult to know what they do approve of. So I guess that is a kind of fear.

I don't see this as an absolute. I know that politics are a spectrum. I'm more or less commenting on what I've observed in people. There are a few people who I have trouble pegging as either conservative or liberal, and so I guess these people are generally "moderates" for the lack of a better word.

Anyway, what do you think of the study? Of the theory?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

The_Dunedan

No.

Yes, I have both watched and experienced this process within my own life. I have seen the switch go both ways, btw: there is much truth in the adage that "A Conservative is a Liberal who's just been mugged, while a Liberal is a Conservative who's just been arrested."

No more than there is a "catholic gene."

It leads me to believe that the persons authoring or funding the study had a predetermined, desired outcome in mind (ie; Conservatives Are Stupid -AND- Cowards!) and set out to prove it. There have been several such dubious "studies" come out recently, all purporting to show that non-Leftists are cowardly, stupid, uninformed, lacking in compassion and generally Nasty People: oddly enough all of these "studies" seem to do nothing more than support asinine Leftist stereotypes. I wonder if we'll ever see a "study" by a major University which purports to confirm all the nasty stereotypes Rightists bandy about in regards to liberals?

When "The Bell Curve" came out, it was rightly panned for engaging in this kind of "research." But then again, The Bell Curve purported to show that Blacks are stupid, oversexed, criminally-inclined numpties, while these latest such works purport to show that non-Leftists are greedy, stupid, cruel, and cowardly.

If anyone can point out to me a difference between these two cases besides the fact that Black Americans usually vote Democrat, I'd love to see what it is.

__________________
"I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world."

--Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

roachboy

i am in the middle of something, but this is interesting so a quick note.

first off conservative discourse is freighted with all kinds of assumptions about the demographic it is aimed at. and within that discourse, fear and its inverse in assertions of identity and/or stability and/or "transcendence" (as over against, say, assertions of historical contingency of values, which would be scary scary bad within the discourse---the erosion of this vaporous illusion called "the american way of life" for example) is a central theme.

it turns up all over the place in conservative-speak.

for example, status anxiety and it's reverse in the surreal assumptions about the welfare state, which is presumably some scary bad instrument of scary bad social mobility which of course is a problem of conservatives who are beset with status anxiety because it follows that if a conservative is interpellated by his or her own discourse as the Eternal Victim and there's social mobility breaking out all over the place, then the conservative cum Eternal Victim is going to loose out.

the racist opposition to "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS" as a threat to the racial purity of the american volk is another example.

"terrorist" is another.

the list is easy to extend.


anyway, it's reasonable from a sociological viewpoint (say) to assume that there's something compelling about a discourse based on fear or anxiety about loss of position or status for people who share certain beliefs or assumptions about the world. it's logical to assume that there are connections between these beliefs and some sort of cognitive arrangement, simply because there are connections between *any* disposition (or act or anything else human beings do) with *some* kind of cognitive arrangement.

but i am not convinced at first blush by the approach taken in the study---there are many theoretical frameworks for thinking about the relation between a geography of the brain and cognitive activity and some of the more interesting recent ones (that i'm aware of---there's no doubt others) don't see cognition as linked in any strong way to particular regions of the brain. neural networks more like, which are not localized (but not entirely other than localized---a different frame).

the press release seems to make a simple correlation claim.
i'm not sure.
but i want to check into it more when later...

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

Can you point me to information regarding these identifiers?

What stereotypes?

There is a difference between behavioural-based research and race-based research.

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------

I think this is at the core as to why the media would make a correlation. The mainstream conservative political discourse tends to play off of anxieties and fears. It happens in Canada as well as in the U.S.

As one example, there is a big push from conservatives to build more prisons despite a dropping crime rate. And the backdrop of this is a past push for tougher penalties for criminals. All of this despite a dropping crime rate.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Cimarron29414

Further proof that Liberalism really is a mental disorder - the study and the results. Perhaps the Obama administration can draft something to get it added to the ADA? Sorry, having trouble taking this seriously. No doubt, you guys will, though.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

cimmaron. so you don't like the results.
but rather than give anything like a coherent argument, you resort to "i know you are but what am i?"

please. that's just weak.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

There's no argument to be had. It's a study and it has results. Unless one finances a study to further investigate, it is what it is. What I do know is that for the next 20 years, you guys will be able to say you once read a study that conservatives have a bigger "fear gland" than liberals and that's why <insert liberal mantra here>. So, congratulations for that. Shrug.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

but the more difficult problem is that conservative discourse has the characteristics i outlined above and those characteristics are what oriented the study--which isn't really that interesting as a study if you actually look at it---but hey why bother with that when the "real" issue here is that you don't like what it says on the surface?

it's self-evident that there are dispositions amongst conservative folk---across their diversity---that resonate with the patchwork of memes and patterns that comprises conservative discourse. otherwise there'd be no mobilization. there'd be no conservatism.

it's also self-evident that dispositions come from somewhere. that somewhere is one form or another of cognitive arrangement.

unless you imagine that personal dispositions float around in space or that they are consumer goods like everything else in the united states---but even if you for some strange reason thought that you went shopping for dispositions, there'd still be dispositions or patterns of experience/projection (which organize information) that'd lean on one form or another of cognitive arrangement.

because everything human beings do leans at one level of another on cognitive arrangements.
and this because there's very little about the world as human beings understand it that's given with the objects themselves. almost everything is imputed to objects in the world, imputed to the world, across types of (embodied) cognitive arrangements.


so if there is an underlying argument that shapes your objections, it's absurd.


for what it's worth, i think most forms of continuity are illusions. so the idea of some pineal gland defect that "explains" conservatism is laughable. but that's another matter.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

A worthwhile critique (or endorsement) of a study typically requires reading the study.

I think that perhaps the conclusion of the study makes sense, but having not read the paper, I have no idea how relevant it is.

Baraka_Guru

Well, that's just it. I don't know anything about the study beyond what's reported here. I just don't see anything that says it is suggesting that conservatives are crybabies and liberals are Pollyannas. To do so would be projecting.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

mixedmedia

From what I've learned about the brain, the size of any one component does tend to correlate with the intensity of its neural activity - more networks, more myelinated axons, more bulk. Not only is the amygdala associated with fear reactions but it is also heavily involved in almost all of the emotional responses that make up our 'survival instincts' as well as the retention of emotion-based memory so obviously the quality (hardship or relative ease) of one's life is going to affect the size of the amygdala, as well. So I'm not sure you could easily make a case that its size necessarily correlates with political opinion. After all, I'm a liberal and I certainly do fear the consequences of unchecked conservatism in this country. I quite literally fear it.

Overall, I tend to agree with Baraka's observation that the brain is a very complex organ and there are many 'higher' brain functions that contribute to the formation of things like values and opinions (not to mention experience and memory) - so much so that I would think it to be quite difficult to pin down something as vague as 'political attitude' on the observation of one area of the brain.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

roachboy

having some trouble locating the actual study. it looks like it may have just been announced. and these people put out lots of stuff.

this page is from university college london and links to both the wellcome institute, which is the institutional space from which the study originated, and to a bbc radio program that features a discussion with one of the authors

Left wing or right wing? It's written in the brain

the radio program appears to be the source for the other coverage.

in one or another of the press blurbs i've been going through, this caveat from Geraint Rees, the neurologist who carried out the study:

which means basically that the apparent circle pointed out earlier is an actual circle.

it'd be nice to read the study.

---------- Post added at 08:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 PM ----------

this piece explains it:

Political allegiances linked to brain structure, study finds | Politics | The Guardian

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ottopilot

Science!

They should make an educational video and use this for the template...

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

The_Jazz

Am I the only one that thinks that the study is far too small to draw any conclusion beyond "huh, that's kinda interesting" from?

I will be shocked if this turns out to be much more than an interesting aside.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

The_Dunedan

You know, how Liberals are intrinsically hostile to Religion in general and Christianity in particular, and will as a result favour any non-Christian in almost any dispute with any Christian, and any Atheist over any Believer.

Or how Liberals are so in love with themselves that, rather than answer a simple and direct question in a simple and direct way, they'll predictably veer of into unintelligible pseudo-intellectual gobbledegook in order to both stroke their own egos (look how smart I am!) and confuse/obfuscate the issue. Mr. Obama is an unfortunate walking-talking-bullshitting avatar of this particular stereotype.

Or how Liberals are motivated primarily by jealousy and greed (thinly and poorly disguised as altruism) and a desire to punish anybody who has ever had any success in life of their own making.

Or how Liberals are too concerned about the possibility of drug-smuggling terrorists dying in the desert to give a fuck about the fact that they are, in fact, drug-smugglers and terrorists.

Or how an analogous concern for (and subliminal guilt over) collectivised racial sins of the past causes Liberals to be more concerned with making sure a Black criminal is released from prison than they are about the crimes he commits upon said release, or the severity of the crimes which landed him there in the first place.

Or how only Liberals could possibly be stupid enough to believe that the way out of debt is by borrowing -more- money, and that the way to make sure people are safe in their beds is to disarm them so that they cannot defend themselves while simultaneously castrating and hobbling the Police, and that the proper response to threats/bullying/assault is either to beg and reason with, bribe, or appease the bully in question, and that self-defense is somehow less dignified and socially acceptable than allowing onesself to be beaten, robbed or killed.


And those are the most polite of the stereotypes I routinely encounter. I'm sure with enough money, a properly manipulated sample, and a vague enough set of objectives, a study could be done which proves each of these bullshit statements to be "fact." It would be just as much horseshit as this alleged "study."

__________________
"I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world."

--Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

filtherton

Just going by the infotainment in the OP: this type of study doesn't give any indication of temporality, so no claims can be made about what causes what. Also, there is no indication that any care was given to drawing a representative sample, just that they polled folks who had been scanned for other studies. The nature of these other studies would be good to know.

As far as the study goes, whatever. A more interesting question would be whether conservative political positions are primarily fear driven. A better way of answering would likely rely on aking people why they believe the things they believe.

roachboy

i don't think the centrality of fear is a stereotype. it's a feature of how conservative political language works.

stereotyping would come with the attempt to say that there's a particular personality traits that explain the appeal of conservative political-speak. it's not that difficult to get your head around.

i find it bewildering how snippy the conservative set has become over this "study"---if you accept the worldview, you obviously know already about the central place accorded anxiety about loss of position, be it international or social or racial....you believe this stuff to the extent that you employ a political discourse that builds patterns (links elements in the worldview) based on that anxiety about loss of position.

so why get all pissy if it's pointed out?

btw the "study" wasn't really a study. it was a lark commissioned for a radio program that turned out to reveal a consistency the explanation for which was not developed and the meaning of which is basically what jazz said: o look at that. interesting.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

I can't really comment until more information is released about the study. Before then, all the bruised conservative egos and liberal "ah, I see"s in the world are moot.

roachboy

thing is that it's not really a study. it was a gig commissioned for the bbc radio 4 show linked above. in the course of that, the team noticed this curious correlation in brain organization. they dont have a real interpretation of it. maybe there'll be a study at some point.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

mixedmedia

i suppose the act of fearing is far less significant than what you fear.
and, of course, that brings us right back around to where we started.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

aceventura3

When I was young and stupid (or stupider) I did not fear anything. I assumed fear was learned and was natures way of helping the human race propagate. Does this study contradict my assumption or what is the implication of the study relative to wisdom that comes with experience?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

rimshot

I can't help wondering what a southern red necked Baptist brain looks like?

aceventura3

I know a few southern red neck baptists; I doubt their brains look any different than yours. Sorry, i could not help myself with that set up and I should add - or mine or anyone else's brain - they all kinda look the same.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

james t kirk

Interesting, but how does it explain conservative concentrations in certain parts of the USA. The so called "bible belt" for example.

Does everyone in those areas have the same brain configuration?

From a purely statistical perspective, that would be impossible.

aceventura3

I moved from Southern California to North Carolina. Before the move, I did research, my primary goal was to get out of California so my options were open. I am not a religious person, but the area I live in now is more conservative than liberal (even self designated liberals around here seem more conservative than not) and is an excellent place for family life. I would not recommend it to a young single adult, for that person I would actually recommend Southern California. Seems to me that migration patterns reinforce the perceptions of certain areas and you end up with more of what an area is known for.

Also, this notion of fear has to be looked at from both sides. For example some people fear McDonald's Happy Meals others fear the government taking their guns - which fear is more irrational?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Probably the one based on the much higher improbability or, in extreme cases, fantasy.

I'd be more afraid of junk that's actually inside of children than of the totalitarian state that might one day come.

It's kind of a silly comparison though, and I don't think this is really what this is about. I think the idea is about how we handle fear and how perspectives vary based on how we handle or otherwise register fear.

Kind of a "close the borders!" vs. "reform immigration policy!" sort of thing.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

In either case in the examples, the fear is not really the Happy Meal or not having a gun. In one case it seems to be a fear of corrupt big corporations and the other rooted in the fear of corrupt big government.

Fat, salt and sugar is a necessary part of the human diet. It seems your statement supports my point - your fear can not really be what is in a Happy Meal, given acceptable food quality standards. A Happy Meal can easily be a part of a healthy diet for a child.

If your point is that I could have given two better side by side examples of irrational fear, I can be comfortable with the "silly" terminology. If your point is that a comparison of group A's irrational fears to group B's irrational fears is "silly", I think that is "silly".

The human response to fear is very predictable. Most of the initial reaction occurs on a subconscious level. It is easy for me to accept and understand a response to fears that I share - it is more difficult to accept and understand a response to fears that I don't have. I think this is true for most people.

Isn't that just a question of degree. Neither allows for open boarders or a total free-flow. In order to actually have an immigration policy there has to be some kind of closed boarder - even if it is to regulate the flow. Most people I know who want closed boarders actually want the government to do that first and then reform immigration policy. It is a chicken v egg kind of question in my view more than a issue of intolerance.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

My point is that your comparison contrasts what is vs. some long shot.

I don't think the fear about Happy Meals is the same as the fear about guns. With the Happy Meals, I'm not sure you could even call it a fear. Maybe more of a concern for the well-being of other people, especially impressionable minors.

Sure you can pass off a Happy Meal as a part of one's diet, but the issue isn't that they contain fat, salt, and carbohydrates, it's that they contain an unideal amount and unideal types. Any nutritionist will tell you that the amount of salt in a Happy Meal is high enough to warrant making it only a rare treat, rather than "a part of a balanced diet." The animal fat and refined carbohydrates are another matter. They're okay in moderation, I suppose, but too much isn't ideal.

I don't even know why I'm going into this. Are people really afraid of Happy Meals, or are they afraid of childhood obesity and the long-term effects of diet on such things as heart disease and cancer?

What's more reasonable to fear? The top actual killers in America or some totalitarian fantasy?

If you were just using these examples as metaphors, then do away with them because they're distracting. Are you instead asking what's more reasonable to fear between corporations and governments?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

My point was not a fear of guns. Some people fear of life without guns.

Children don't buy Happy Meals, adults do. The concept of the food police (spreading across this nation in various forms) is something I don't understand, it has never been logically explained - I consider it an irrational fear.

One size does not fit all. Ideal to one child may not be ideal for another.

The sodium content ranges in Happy Meals depending on which on it is, the highest is about 700 mg. Depending on age the daily recommended allowance is about 500 mg. Given the nature of the way some children eat, some will only eat a few select foods perhaps sacrificing protein, to get a child to regularly eat a Happy Meal hamburger may be well worth the extra sodium that they might be getting. Then if you take an extremely active boy in the summer in a hot and humid climate - they may very well need extra sodium. Any nutritionist who make blanket statements without qualification for individual assessment and individual needs is not worth a grain of salt.

Why do they want to outlaw happy Meals? Why is there the chatter about setting legal limits on salt? The issues are judgment, knowledge and the availability of cost effective alternatives. The target of the fear is incorrect. the target is irrational. Such is the case with other fears, and I am just using this to illustrate a point, I think you see it.

That is not how gun lovers would frame the argument. I have never been a good judge of what is a reasonable fear for others, I have started taking the time to understand them. For example I know some black southern gun owners who lived through the "Jim Crow" era in the US, thousands were lynched, as government did nothing, they will never give up their guns. Are their fears reasonable for 2011? Who am I to say.

Distracting? Excuse me, feel free to get back on the real issue.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Yes, it's a bit distracting. You're not going to talk me out of my knowledge that eating too much salt, animal fat, and refined carbohydrates is bad for your health. Also, I'm unaware of people who want to ban McDonald's. I suppose I would rank those people right up there with the people who are afraid the government is going to take away all the guns. You know, extremists.

So to summarize, 1) you won't convince me that McDonald's is healthy, 2) I don't support the idea of a Food Police, and 3) if you are afraid of America becoming a totalitarian state, you're being a bit irrational to say the least.

I guess the core of the matter is, again, how we manifest and how we register fear. Fear often makes one think irrationally because its mechanism doesn't easily distinguish harm from harmlessness. It's a survival mechanism, of course. It's normal to fear danger, but when the chance of that danger is a long shot, it becomes irrational rather quickly.

If I had to choose, though, I assume I would be more afraid of McDonald's and its effect on my children's health than I am of the government tossing out the Constitution. Junk food is bad for you right now. What the government might do to you in your mind is generally harmless except in the unlikelihood that it comes true...or maybe if it causes some kind of psychosomatic illness.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

What I find distracting is responce to trivial matters while ignoring major points.

For example:

There is a definite correlation with fear and age. If there is a correlation with fear and conservatism it has more to do with the fact that older people are more conservative than younger people.

Another point, both conservatives and liberals have fears, some are irrational. A liberal is more likely to understand a response to the fears of other liberals based on shared points of view, even when those fears or the responses are irrational - same with conservatives. Based on ideology people tend to find some irrational fears or responses acceptable.

Another point - humans respond to fear in predictable ways.

The premise in the original post's citation has obvious holes.


First that is not my position. I agree "too much" can be bad, even "too much" water can be bad for one's health. Second, a bad diet has more to do with not having access to low cost alternatives. In urban areas in the US fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely costly compared to processed food. The obvious answer is not to attack processed food, but to make alternatives available at a low cost. Poor people will drink more orange juice than orange soda, if the orange juice cost less than orange soda.

Again, not my point. There are people who want to ban Happy Meals. There are people who want to ban soda for children. People who want to regulate salt content in restaurant prepared meals. We even have the government banning certain drinks containing alcohol and caffeine. It is getting ridiculous. Why are they doing this? Why do they think this way? I don't get it.

I was raised in the Chicago area. They banned gun ownership, basically making hundreds of thousands of regular law abiding people criminals overnight. Yet, the city is not safer. You can bet if I lived in the city of Chicago, I would own a gun. if you consider a man who wants to protect his family and property an extremist, color me an extremist along with hundreds of thousands of others who live in the city - a city with one of the highest murder rates in the country. Generations of liberal leadership in the city has failed. Yes, I fear government incompetence.

I do have some irrational fears. But, even knowing they are irrational, those irrational fears cause known and predictable reactions in me. I have taken the time to understand this and I work on it. You seem to suggest that you don't have any irrational fears, is that truly the case?

I might add that it requires an objective and detached self analysis to even be able to understand when a personally held fear is irrational. Most people won't do that type of self analysis. This topic is one that I have given a lot of thought to.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Oh, believe me, I have many irrational fears. I'm quite familiar with the subject, which is why I had originally commented on your comparison. I still think fearing the taking away of guns is more irrational than fearing the health effects of junk food.

Is that what we're talking about?

I thought it was a handgun ban.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

I gave a very concrete example of a set of people who lived in fear during the Jim Crow era of the real possibility of being abducted from their homes at night and hung from a tree often in the presence of elected government officials and law enforcement officials. Gun ownership became very important to these men as a means to protect life and property. In 2011 their fears prompting their desires for having guns may in fact be irrational in 2011 - but I am not to judge. However, I understand their fear when it is explained to me but I do not understand fearing the health effects of junk food.

A comparison of junk food and guns was never the key point, the key point was that regardless of ideology, all people have fears that could be considered irrational or responses to fears that can be considered irrational. I further suggest that ideology has an impact on how another views the fears or responses of another. So, to me it is easy to go down a long list of fears held by liberals that I think are completely irrational - but I have learned to pause and try to get a better understanding. I don't think you have done that on the issues involving gun ownership.

I have never read the text of the actual ordinance. Some sources call it a handgun ban some call it a gun ban. The technical differences between a handgun and other types of firearms can get blurry pretty fast, I would assume the ordinance includes its own specific definition.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Jinn

Since this somehow derailed into an argument about McDonalds (or is it guns?) I'll revitalize the thread with a recent post by that god-awful heathen PZ Myers, and I agree with him word for word.

The new phrenology : Pharyngula

... (snipped)

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Cynthetiq

This is about where I am with this. It's too complex to just pigeon hole except say, "Interesting... almost."

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

aceventura3

This type of comment comes up frequently after I use specific examples to illustrate a point. When I use an example it is just that, one example. Normally when I give one example, there are hundreds of others that could follow-also illustrating or supporting a point. Often, "we" (when questioned or challenged I will almost always respond) get derailed in the example rather than the primary point. I often interpret this as a mechanism used when there is no reasoned response to the primary point. Then the narrative becomes Ace derailed the thread. I think this is an irrational response to a fear of a strongly held belief being challenged. I also believe it serves as yet another example of the points I have made here.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Cimarron29414

The Liberals of California do not fear Happy Meals. They fear having to parent their children.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

powerclown

Yeah this is somethingf I don;t understand about some conservatives terrified of taking a shower with a homosexual fellow soldier but fearless up against a heterosexual terrorist with an 80lb machinegun and orders to kill him.

Jinn

In case anyone is wondering what kind of strange metaphor McDonald's Happy Meals are for conservatives, they're talking about this:

OH NOES! McDonalds can't sell things with toys that have MORE THAN 600 CALORIES!! YOU KNOW, LIKE THE ENTIRE DAILY ALLOWANCE FOR A CHILD! NANNY-STATE LIBERALISM!

Sad day for conservatives when they have to defend corporations at all costs.. when the government cannot interfere with corporations at all without disturbing some sort of free-market ideal, where government actually regulating anything is "too much government".. or somehow indicative of a problem..

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Baraka_Guru

Isn't there something about marketing cigarettes to minors as well?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot