Thread: 10 Commandents

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

Dollar amount, percentage, time, etc. Conservatives give more by any measure

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=...1#.T5jcueR62Sp

'"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...21kristof.html

and here we see exactly how infested science is with confirmation bias:

'"When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”'

and just for shits and giggles:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...inancial_N.htm

'Biden gave average of $369 to charity a year'

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1176...n_commentaries

'You might remember the fact, reported ad nauseam in the mainstream press last year, that Vice President Dick Cheney's 2005 tax return showed he had a family income of $8.8 million. This was due in no small part from stock options from a variety of companies, including the much-vilified Halliburton Corp. This fact provoked howls of outrage from many of Mr. Cheney's critics, who claimed it was evidence of what one syndicated columnist has called an "autocratic, plutocratic regime."

Significantly less-frequently reported last year was this datum: Mr. and Mrs. Cheney gave 78% of their 2005 income to charity. That's not a typo -- the couple donated $6.9 million, including the proceeds from stock options and book royalties that Mrs. Cheney routinely gives away. Their giving went to three nonprofit causes in health, higher education and services for inner-city youth.
...
In 1997, the Gores only gave away $353 of their income of $197,729, or 0.18%. '

It sort of gets down to conservatives thinking that churches and other religiously affiliated charities can take on the roll of government for the poor, whereas I'd argue that liberals generally find it more equitable to let government take care of providing a safety net for the destitute. Which gets to the issue of taxation, and thus if you truly care about the poor, then avoiding paying taxes, either legally or illegaly, is morally reprehensible, and therefore not in line with christianity.

since you agree that the top 1% are more often then not aligned with the conservatives, then this group of individuals, who is the largest portion of the tax base evading taxes, are not truly following the tennants of Christianity...jeebus...etc.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...taxes-legally/

Originally Posted by Moeghoul

Conservatives are disproportionately 1%ers. If its dollar amount, that doesn't mean they give more in % of income/ wealth.

When it comes to charitable donations it's religion more than political affiliation that's the bigger factor.

The studies on charitable giving show that the religious give more to charity than secular types but liberals who attend church tend to give almost as much as conservatives who attend church.

Regular church goers are more parochial in their giving so when tithing is excluded, then the numbers tend to balance out with a study done by Google suggesting that when giving to religious organizations is separated out then liberals actually give more.

Conservatives still give more as a percentage of their income and donate more time than liberals do while liberals, according to the study, make 6% more than conservatives and secular conservatives are the cheapest of all, giving the least amount to charity.

If you bring religion to this level if you use it to separate people based on something as stupid as words and definitions than your missing the entire point.

All religions and some thought traditions such as Zen that aren't really religions all do the same thing and that is point to something you already know but don't ever really think about.

For example JC said the kingdom of heaven is within, Buddha & Bodhidharma say exactly the same thing though I have a difficult time figuring out how you could get anymore different in terms of how you point at this thing. This thing is understanding the nature of your own mind, its being fully cognizant of your own thinking. A really fucking long time ago humans realized their biggest problem and greatest tool was their own thinking however for the vast majority of us we are completely unable to use thinking as a tool. Rather we follow it out of habit wherever that takes us even if we know it is of no benefit to us. Its like getting a knife and then never ever being able to put it down, eventually you run out of constructive shit to do and just start stabbing people.

Thinking isn't real, its a party trick that as far as we know only one random group of animals can do at least at a level that is interesting to us however it causes 99% of all problems and solutions on earth. Everyone can work at world peace but you'll never have it as long as its every groups individual idea or thinking on world peace. American world peace and Chinese world peace don't go together.

Now what all religions and some thought traditions say is be aware of your own mind, understand your own thinking and when it comes along be in a position to follow it or let it go but have that ability. All people are fundamentally the same, its thought and specifically our inability to separate I from thought that separates people and that causes the vast vast majority of suffering.

Therefore it is entirely abhorrent to the core tenet of all religions and many alternative thought traditions that you use this thought or these ideas to separate people. To wall yourself or a group of peers from other people based on something as stupid as a word or an idea is completely opposite from the basis of all religious teaching. This teaching is that you, I, Bin Laden, everyone is fundamentally the same and that thinking, a stupid monkey tool, allows us to see ourselves as separate as a function of the most unreal concept every invented, the concept of I.

Originally Posted by Powow

I'm not going to try to argue this one way or the other, because it is a retarded argument. But your post is full of bullshit.

It is hilarious to me that you scoff at a guy as an example of being 'infested' with confirmation bias, when he worked to prove a hypothesis and failed, so he changed his views to match what his data was showing him. That evil scientist flip-flopper scumbag!!!

did you miss the part where he did everything he could to disprove his original results? do you think he would have done the same thing if his original results had been the opposite? do you understand what confirmation bias is? once again, feynman is rolling over in his grave

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

did you miss the part where he did everything he could to disprove his original results? do you think he would have done the same thing if his original results had been the opposite? do you understand what confirmation bias is? once again, feynman is rolling over in his grave

If he wanted to get published in any kind of reputable peer reviewed journal, then yes. The more you post about this, the more I'm convinced that you have no idea how real research is conducted. Sure confirmation bias exists, but the scientific process is specifically designed to guard against it, and with proper methodology can be prevented from impacting results. What you keep referencing is a perfect example of this.

Originally Posted by flyandski365

If he wanted to get published in any kind of reputable peer reviewed journal, then yes. The more you post about this, the more I'm convinced that you have no idea how real research is conducted. Sure confirmation bias exists, but the scientific process is specifically designed to guard against it, and with proper methodology can be prevented from impacting results. What you keep referencing is a perfect example of this.

"So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. "

meaning that if his findings had been the opposite, he would have NOT assumed some sort of technical error, would NOT have re-run the analysis, gotten new data, etc. and if his new data had shown that liberals give more, guess which data set he would have published? remember, the first set HAD to be a technical error, thats the only reason he went looking for more data

We'll never know, but I hope so. Any time I get exactly the result I'm expecting at first glance, I'm at least a little suspicious.

I find it interesting that you feel the need to vilify someone who, though his own research came to a conclusion that you agree with but started with an assumption that you didn't.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

It sort of gets down to conservatives thinking that churches and other religiously affiliated charities can take on the role that liberals think that the government should have to provide for the poor

FIFY.

You can't say that the conservative thinks that the church should take the role of government, because they don't think that government should be in that role in the first place. Secondly, there are a lot of conservatives who don't necessarily think it's the church's role either (at least, not exclusively), and would probably broaden their view to include other NGOs and charities in place of the government. It's not necessarily conservative="big on church".

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

FIFY.

You can't say that the conservative thinks that the church should take the role of government, because they don't think that government should be in that role in the first place. Secondly, there are a lot of conservatives who don't necessarily think it's the church's role either (at least, not exclusively), and would probably broaden their view to include other NGOs and charities in place of the government. It's not necessarily conservative="big on church".

I'd have to do some research to see with what frequency conservatives donate $$$ to non-religiously affiliated charities. Thanks for fixing that statement though. I didn't mean to imply that a church would take over all government roles if cons had their way. My point was that cons would like to see the social safety net implemented via charitable organizatoins often religiously affiliated. One of the obvious problem is that this has a tendency to exclude the non-believers in need...hence why government is a better mechanism to manage the safety net. Plus, in theory, since we all are supposed to pay our fair share of taxes, we all support the safety net and hence help those in need. That is, unless you evade paying all or portions of your taxes, legally or illegally, which is often the case for the top 1% of earners...which coincidentially is predominantly affiliated with the GOP...which is the party of the religious right...and for which their tactics are counter to jeebus' teachings.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

It sort of gets down to conservatives thinking that churches and other religiously affiliated charities can take on the roll of government for the poor, whereas I'd argue that liberals generally find it more equitable to let government take care of providing a safety net for the destitute. Which gets to the issue of taxation, and thus if you truly care about the poor, then avoiding paying taxes, either legally or illegaly, is morally reprehensible, and therefore not in line with christianity.

since you agree that the top 1% are more often then not aligned with the conservatives, then this group of individuals, who is the largest portion of the tax base evading taxes, are not truly following the tennants of Christianity...jeebus...etc.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...taxes-legally/

I'm sorry, but the only words coming to mind are gullibly stupid [shaking head slowly in disbelief].

Originally Posted by Bunion

You mean the Romans? That Government?

The ones who put a handful of 16 penny nails through his extremities and hoisted him up on the cross?

I am positive that he wanted them to enforce his rules, chief being "do unto others".

Please, tell us more about WWJD............

And can you provide a copy of the 10 Commandents(sic) that dictate the opposite?

I already did. All the copies of the 10 commandments say - thou shalt not covet - Thou shalt not steal.
They are directed at believers. Can the government be a believer?

Originally Posted by OSECS

I'm sorry, but the only words coming to mind are gullibly stupid [shaking head slowly in disbelief].

Adolf made a stretch that would make stretch Armstrong proud.

What a moron.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

I already did. All the copies of the 10 commandments say - thou shalt not covet - Thou shalt not steal.
They are directed at believers. Can the government be a believer?

I'm sorry but you are now writing about something from the last page, I am not interested enough to go back a page so can you please update me again on what your point is? Doesn't have to be exact just in the neighborhood.

Are we talking about Commandments, Commandants or Commandents? And when you say All, do you mean all Christian versions or all versions, Hebrew(samethingreally) Islam etc?

Thanks eversomuch....

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

"So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. "

meaning that if his findings had been the opposite, he would have NOT assumed some sort of technical error, would NOT have re-run the analysis, gotten new data, etc. and if his new data had shown that liberals give more, guess which data set he would have published? remember, the first set HAD to be a technical error, thats the only reason he went looking for more data

- You are assuming that he would have stopped looking for more data or improving his analysis. He says "my early findings...", presumably he would have worked to strengthen them regardless of what his early results were.
- Just because a result isn't suspicious to him or anyone else, doesn't mean it is rigorous enough to pass peer review. Even if his early results were not surprising, he probably still would have needed to strengthen them, probably in the same way that he did when they appeared to be suspicious.
- You are assuming he would have published the data at all. When I get an un-surprising result, I don't even bother to publish/share it. But admittedly, you are under different pressures in academia and fluffy science like sociology/poli sci so I don't know if that would have been the case here.

It is a fact of life that people focus more effort on suspicious results. If you want to call that confirmation bias, fine. I hope you aren't in research, because if you try to ignore your own 'confirmation bias', you'll never get anything done. You are simply lying if you claim to investigate unsurprising results as thoroughly as surprising results.

Originally Posted by OSECS

I'm sorry, but the only words coming to mind are gullibly stupid [shaking head slowly in disbelief].

Mission accomplished! Seriously, when you're on the same side of an issue as dumbfuckbrain you know you're fucked in the head. Re-evaluate and try again.

Originally Posted by Powow

- You are assuming that he would have stopped looking for more data or improving his analysis. He says "my early findings...", presumably he would have worked to strengthen them regardless of what his early results were.
- Just because a result isn't suspicious to him or anyone else, doesn't mean it is rigorous enough to pass peer review. Even if his early results were not surprising, he probably still would have needed to strengthen them, probably in the same way that he did when they appeared to be suspicious.
- You are assuming he would have published the data at all. When I get an un-surprising result, I don't even bother to publish/share it. But admittedly, you are under different pressures in academia and fluffy science like sociology/poli sci so I don't know if that would have been the case here.

It is a fact of life that people focus more effort on suspicious results. If you want to call that confirmation bias, fine. I hope you aren't in research, because if you try to ignore your own 'confirmation bias', you'll never get anything done. You are simply lying if you claim to investigate unsurprising results as thoroughly as surprising results.

Well its all relative. Suspicious results like neutrinos moving faster than c should get great scrutiny. But there's very little emotion involved in physics research, or say microbiology - no one is emotionally connected to which receptors are involved in a particular reaction.

But in less rigorous, more touchy feely fields like sociology or "climatology" its pretty clear that detachment and avoidance of confirmation bias are not only important, but often lacking. Of course in these fields you should scrutinize results that support your hypothesis as much as you do those which undermine it. Thats the essence of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_dro...ic_methodology

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

Well its all relative. Suspicious results like neutrinos moving faster than c should get great scrutiny. But there's very little emotion involved in physics research, or say microbiology - no one is emotionally connected to which receptors are involved in a particular reaction.

But in less rigorous, more touchy feely fields like sociology or "climatology" its pretty clear that detachment and avoidance of confirmation bias are not only important, but often lacking. Of course in these fields you should scrutinize results that support your hypothesis as much as you do those which undermine it. Thats the essence of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_dro...ic_methodology

Lolz. You got your dumbass handed to you the last time you tried to 'splain physics and science to everyone fucktard. Sure you wanna give it another go? Climatology, soft....physics and chem...totally soft

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

Well its all relative. Suspicious results like neutrinos moving faster than c should get great scrutiny. But there's very little emotion involved in physics research, or say microbiology - no one is emotionally connected to which receptors are involved in a particular reaction.

But in less rigorous, more touchy feely fields like sociology or "climatology" its pretty clear that detachment and avoidance of confirmation bias are not only important, but often lacking. Of course in these fields you should scrutinize results that support your hypothesis as much as you do those which undermine it. Thats the essence of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_dro...ic_methodology

Wow, welcome to basic research methods. What kind of response were you expecting from this post? Someone to say "Whoa! I never heard of that! Now I don't trust science. " Seriously man, you're bringing down the dialogue, which is really saying something on this board.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Lolz. You got your dumbass handed to you the last time you tried to 'splain physics and science to everyone fucktard.

How exactly? Be specifc

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

How exactly? Be specifc

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/242743-Tennessee-Nearly-as-stupid-today-as-in-1925

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/242743-Tennessee-Nearly-as-stupid-today-as-in-1925

where was my mistake? this time be specific

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

where was my mistake? this time be specific

You're a funny guy. I think you're trolling. Bait taken. It's up to you to prove yourself...I can't do that for you. Good luck.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

You're a funny guy. I think you're trolling. Bait taken. It's up to you to prove yourself...I can't do that for you. Good luck.

So you can't back up your words in any way whatsoever. Color me shocked

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

So you can't back up your words in any way whatsoever. Color me shocked

I already backed it up. I don't need to repost everything you said in that thread. You and only you can try to clear up your mistakes in that thread. Like I said, good luck.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

I already backed it up. I don't need to repost everything you said in that thread. You and only you can try to clear up your mistakes in that thread. Like I said, good luck.

So you don't understand what the word specific means. Now i see why this conversation isnt going anywhere. Look it up, then get back to me