Overdog Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Reason, let me say this to you. If certain traits are necessary or beneficial for a national office holder, and these traits can be determined, I think this has value. There are people who have no business holding public office who have unfortunately been elected because of public ignorance. There are people in office now who are injurious to our social and economic systems. You can believe what you wish, but I see no value for either of us to continuethe badinage unless you have some information or research negating my opinion. I'm not a religous person, but I thank god that those ignorant voters haven't elected someone with your vision into office. Do you not realize that the kind of thinking you are advocating has led to some of the most egregious horrors in human history? Edit: Let me give you a clue... Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Reason, let me say this to you. If certain traits are necessary or beneficial for a national office holder, and these traits can be determined, I think this has value. There are people who have no business holding public office who have unfortunately been elected because of public ignorance. ...Finally!OK, Questor, can you give us some examples of these traits?From your original post, would I be correct in assuming that you feel these traits lie solely with those of a conservative or liberal political view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 I'm not a religous person, but I thank god that those ignorant voters haven't elected someone with your vision into office. Do you not realize that the kind of thinking you are advocating has led to some of the most egregious horrors in human history? Edit: Let me give you a clue... Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think all this is far to simplistic, there are far more than two groups in the way people think. Some people want to think for themselves. Others want to believe all the thinking has already been done. In these two groups you have people who feel strongly they need to tell others what to think. Then you have the rest of the people looking to be told what to think. I am sure there are many more sub groups and you can apply the labels of left and right to which ever group you want but it still comes down to these two top groups. For me I think for myself and don't really give a rats *** what others think until they intrude on my own freedom to think and do what I want. This of course behooves me to support those who support freedom of thought and action, of course in my view this doesn't include the average right wing neoconservative, on the other hand I do not blindly support left wing liberals either. It's called the middle ground and I think there are far more people in the middle than on either side of this "great divide" :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overdog Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 I think all this is far to simplistic, there are far more than two groups in the way people think. Some people want to think for themselves. Others want to believe all the thinking has already been done. In these two groups you have people who feel strongly they need to tell others what to think. Then you have the rest of the people looking to be told what to think. I am sure there are many more sub groups and you can apply the labels of left and right to which ever group you want but it still comes down to these two top groups. For me I think for myself and don't really give a rats *** what others think until they intrude on my own freedom to think and do what I want. This of course behooves me to support those who support freedom of thought and action, of course in my view this doesn't include the average right wing neoconservative, on the other hand I do not blindly support left wing liberals either. It's called the middle ground and I think there are far more people in the middle than on either side of this "great divide" :eek: I see your point, Moontanman, and don't disagree with it. But questor is advocating a political ideology here. One that says your child can't be president simply because he/she is left or right brained. Once we go down that road, where does it stop? It is Fascism, plain and simple. I would die fighting against it, as many already have, if it ever comes to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 I see your point, Moontanman, and don't disagree with it. But questor is advocating a political ideology here. One that says your child can't be president simply because he/she is left or right brained. Once we go down that road, where does it stop? It is Fascism, plain and simple. I would die fighting against it, as many already have, if it ever comes to that. Oh I agree whole heartedly, if I was forced to choose between liberal and conservative I would have to choose Liberal. I don't agree with all liberal policies but at least the liberals are less likely to want to round up people like me and put us in camps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 But questor is advocating a political ideology here. One that says your child can't be president simply because he/she is left or right brained. Once we go down that road, where does it stop? It is Fascism, plain and simple. I would die fighting against it, as many already have, if it ever comes to that. Yup Overdog, that is indeed what qustor is saying and I can see how you would be concerned where that thinking leads. As you probably were not around during the previous discussion on this topic I'd recommend checking out the first few posts of questor's 13331. Questor starts by envisioning a time when a brain scan would reveal that a potential president is conservative enough for office. Questor, This might be a good time to point out that arguing from an agenda has colored and biased all the good science that has been offered in these threads. The scientific research on left brain / right brain character traits is very interesting. Also, the genetic component to ideology which is explored in the twin study I linked a few posts ago is very good reading and worthy of scientific discussion. This however is very difficult to accomplish on hypography because you dominate this issue with a clear and obvious agenda. Your attempts to skew this research doesn't just hurt this thread, it hurts your argument. Notice what Overdog said when he realized your bias. ~modest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted July 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 When I was asked to clarify my position I did so i post #35:Re: Brain Wiring Redux -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Zythryn, thanks for your polite questions. Here are the answers:''Is your supposition that this 'brain wiring' you refer to set at birth, or by experience? If both, about what percentage (rough guess of course).''The genetic framework for neural wiring is set at birth. As it matures, thought processes may cause some new anastomoses with existing neurons and environmental occurrences may alter and/or add to thought perception.But, as the individual matures, he tends to favor one hemisphere over the other. ( 40% of the voting public are liberal, 40% conservative--rough guess)''Even if this were true, why should a 'test' be applied to people running for office? Can we not tell based on their platform? This point may deserve a thread of its own.''As we currently elect our politicians, we know very little about how they would conduct the business of the people. Take Obama--what will he do about taxes? welfare? Iraq? Racial questions? The economy? Are we to be socialists or capitalists? Shouldn't people know? Platforms change and politicians lie. They do not keep their promises. Do you have a better way todetermine suitability for the job?''Are you aware the definitions of liberal and conservative have changed many times in history?''I am only concerned about the current situation.''Finally, I don't think you can label most people as one or the other. Most have aspects of both. For example, I don't think you could label me either one (take your best shot though).''I agree there is crossover, but the situation is true for millions. Why did 50 million people vote for Kerry and 50 million vote for Bush in the last election? From my simple statement above we are now into passing laws and rounding up people for jail I assume. This thinking ensues from an inability to process the printed word intellectually. This inability for sequential thinking is one of the traits I will discuss in another political thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REASON Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 From my simple statement above we are now into passing laws and rounding up people for jail I assume. This thinking ensues from an inability to process the printed word intellectually. This inability for sequential thinking is one of the traits I will discuss in another political thread. Since we are so inept in our ability to intelligently process the printed word sequentially, why don't you assist our inferior brain chemistry and explain what you meant when you said: I would suggest they immediately call in a conservative psychiatrist to see if he could straighten the kid out before he runs for president. Secondly, I didn't accuse you of favoring any laws, I asked you if you would. You have yet to answer it so I will politely ask it again. If somehow, it were objectively determined what the traits are that would be "necessary or beneficial for a national office holder," would you support establishing a law that would restrict national office holding postitions to those who were deemed to possess those traits? In your opinion, what are some examples of the kind of traits you're talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Finally!OK, Questor, can you give us some examples of these traits?From your original post, would I be correct in assuming that you feel these traits lie solely with those of a conservative or liberal political view? I am still interested in Questor's vision of what those traits are.:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted July 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 You will just have to wait for further discussion in the Social Sciences Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 You will just have to wait for further discussion in the Social Sciences Forum. Since this thread has offered zero new evidence in favor of the proposal being made, and since questor refuses to address the questions posed to him, I move that this thread also be closed, as it's no different from the other one which already was. All in favor, say "Aye." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overdog Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Aye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted July 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 It is chilling to think that someone in official position in an open website can summarily close a thread just because he wants to. Is this free speech or is it all tightly controlled by a moderator who doesn't seem to like a poster? I defy any moderator to read my past posts and say I did not furnish links when asked and answer questions. Let this moderator point out my transgressions and answer a few questions himself. I will supply some of his own posts showing an insulting and denigrating style of communication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 It is chilling to think that someone in official position in an open website can summarily close a thread just because he wants to. I'm not sure what you mean by "open website", but just to clarify, there are rules on this site which are administered by the moderators to the best of their judgment. So yes, we may close threads if we find that they have become malicious or if it is a circular thread that has made its point and is not conducive to further discussion. It's *very* rare that we close threads. Is this free speech or is it all tightly controlled by a moderator who doesn't seem to like a poster? Hypography welcomes free speech as long as it stays within the rules. I defy any moderator to read my past posts and say I did not furnish links when asked and answer questions. Errr....your last post? Let this moderator point out my transgressions and answer a few questions himself. I will supply some of his own posts showing an insulting and denigrating style of communication. It seems that you are challenging the staff to a spiteful game. Please stick to the topic and arguing your points. If you have any questions or concerns, then feel free to contact myself or any other moderator or administrator. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 It is chilling to think that someone in official position in an open website can summarily close a thread just because he wants to. Is this free speech or is it all tightly controlled by a moderator who doesn't seem to like a poster?. What moderator are you talking about :hihi: ~modest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted July 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 I assume you meant this exchange:''Secondly, I didn't accuse you of favoring any laws, I asked you if you would. You have yet to answer it so I will politely ask it again. If somehow, it were objectively determined what the traits are that would be "necessary or beneficial for a national office holder," would you support establishing a law that would restrict national office holding postitions to those who were deemed to possess those traits? In your opinion, what are some examples of the kind of traits you're talking about?''This was my answer:''You will just have to wait for further discussion in the Social Sciences Forum.'' Do you not consider this an answer, when I have said I want to move the discussion to the Social Sciences Forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted July 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 By the way I do intend to obey the rules and treat others as i am treated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts