Transcend
Transcend
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 363
Joined: Oct 1, 2013
January 19th, 2014 at 3:59:22 AM permalink
Quote: Twirdman

So you bring up an event from 70 years ago to go nu-uh you guys are bad too. Every country has committed atrocities that does not mean their country is evil until every person who can remember the event are dead. And if it did all it would mean is basically every country is a monster since there have been plenty of atrocities committed in those time frames for basically any country.


All too true, there has been many genocides on every continent

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history


Quote: EvenBob

Not like the Holocaust.



If you take a look at that link, it shows otherwise. You have to take into account when each genocide happened and relation to the world population of the time as well as ethnic population. There have been far greater atrocities if compared in this fashion.
Part of it went on gambling, and part of it went on women. The rest I spent foolishly. -George Raft
Transcend
Transcend
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 363
Joined: Oct 1, 2013
January 19th, 2014 at 4:06:12 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Your body is your body and you can have
done with it what you like, the state can't
just take it when you die. That's obscene.



Personally I think it is a fantastic idea that the state does this, from a medical standpoint it is worth its weight in gold. There are hundreds of thousands of people waiting on a transplant each day, a new patient is added every ten minutes.

http://donatelife.net/understanding-donation/statistics/

What use do you have for your organs once dead? None, that is just greed not donating it. Which millions do not donate, so the state stepped in to fill the void. Kudos
Part of it went on gambling, and part of it went on women. The rest I spent foolishly. -George Raft
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
January 19th, 2014 at 4:09:01 AM permalink
How about China? You want organs there, they'll harvest right away. Ethnic Mongolians killed for kidneys, hearts, whatever. Tibetans committing self-immolations(public suicide by fire) one after another in protest and regulations are the reasons we can't make it here.
I am a robot.
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
January 19th, 2014 at 4:54:59 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Yeah, um, MI tried the experiment of letting 18
year old's drink a few decades ago. They were killing
themselves and others on the highways to such
a shocking degree that the law was repealed.

Letting the young and stupid drink legally is
never a good idea. If you research it, many
states lowered the drinking age in the 70's
to 18, and raised it to 21 again in the 80's.
Guess why.



My opinion on this is based on personal experience as much as anything. I lost several friends to drinking before age 18 (which was the legal age when I was 18), and none after, but the larger question is; if a person is enough of an adult to make the decision to sign up for a job which can kill them, then they're certainly old enough to decide about drinking. That doesn't mean they aren't capable of bad judgement. It just means they have reached the legal age of adulthood, with its attendant responsibilities and freedoms.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
kubikulann
kubikulann
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 905
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
January 19th, 2014 at 4:59:38 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

My opinion on this is based on personal experience as much as anything. I lost several friends to drinking before age 18 (which was the legal age when I was 18), and none after, but the larger question is; if a person is enough of an adult to make the decision to sign up for a job which can kill them, then they're certainly old enough to decide about drinking. That doesn't mean they aren't capable of bad judgement. It just means they have reached the legal age of adulthood, with its attendant responsibilities and freedoms.

Here we are legally obliged to wear safety belts in cars. I personnally view it as a restriction to private decision. Drinking creates danger to other people and can be forbidden. Safety belt is my own problem.
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
January 19th, 2014 at 5:20:41 AM permalink
Quote: kubikulann

Here we are legally obliged to wear safety belts in cars. I personnally view it as a restriction to private decision. Drinking creates danger to other people and can be forbidden. Safety belt is my own problem.

When google makes driveless cars the party is on.
I am a robot.
rob45
rob45
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 251
Joined: Jul 24, 2013
January 19th, 2014 at 7:19:31 AM permalink
Quote: kubikulann

Come on, I am not "accusing" anyone.

I have went back and edited the post by installing quotation marks for further clarification.
The manner in which your question was presented implies that you have already attempted to form the correlation yourself.
Nothing wrong with being inquisitive; however, your manner easily leads one to believe that you ask the question not to satisfy curiosity, but rather to garner support for your preconceived notion.

Quote: kubikulann

I wonder if there is more evidence one way or the other, and asking for evidence pro and contra. Your saying "I know many people" is not standard scientific sampling, is it?

Quote: kubikulann

One instance is definitely not enough, so a statistical analysis is welcome.
Other instances from this forum? Or counterexamples?

Indeed, my statement of "I know many people" is not standard scientific sampling. If your goal was to obtain more validity, perhaps this thread should have been presented in the form of a poll.
By asking for "statistical analysis" in one sentence and "other instances from this forum" or "counterexamples" thereafter, you have no ground to insist upon "standard scientific sampling".

My client list is in excess of one thousand individuals. Out of those, I have frequently gambled with better than a hundred.
As I am in business, I do not discuss politics with these individuals; however, I do gain insight based upon any information volunteered by the individuals themselves.
As I am generally in the presence of the individual(s), I can also observe their gambling beliefs/habits/methods.
I have wondered the same as you, and my unscientific method of sampling indicates there is not enough conclusive evidence to support a correlation between gambling methods and political beliefs.
To ask for a correlation is to require a larger sample size than 100+ individuals, but I will stand by my statement that, until proven otherwise, there is no correlation.

Were I to visit, say, Belgium, and play on a full Roulette table, I could easily make assumptions, but attempting to form a correlation is another thing entirely.
If everyone at the table played their Martingale, cancellation, or whatever, while I remained the only flat-bettor, I could ponder as thus: "Man, these Belgians are crazy with their betting systems! I wonder, what are the political leanings of Belgium as a whole?"
A few caveats with forming any correlation (let alone forming any assumptions or opinions):
1. I do not inquire as to the political beliefs of the other players, so I cannot form conclusions due to lack of research.
2. Were I to form any generalizations concerning the political leanings of the country of Belgium, it is entirely incorrect to assume those individuals with whom I am playing hold the same beliefs as the majority of the nation.
3. Were I to conduct the necessary research (ask the other players their political opinions), any findings would necessarily be dependent upon honesty during the inquiry.
4. I am playing at one table with a select few. Sample size definitely rules.


The intention of this thread remains dubious.
You have not expressed at least a mild frustration concerning the lack of gainful insight and commentary on your "question", yet you have allowed the thread to proceed in directions other than that which you supposedly represent.
For the answer to your "question", a poll would have been the logical choice.
For the other content, a new thread would have easily sufficed. An apt title for that thread could be: "Why my country is better than yours."
kubikulann
kubikulann
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 905
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
January 19th, 2014 at 8:12:02 AM permalink
Alright. Case closed. Thereis no correlation.

But please notice I was NOT talking of countries, yet of political ideas. It is EvenBob who (1) established a link with being Belgian (2) began with his country being better than European ones. I simply found that assertion so ridiculous (one way or another) that I pushed him towards the contradictions in his position. I DO NOT think a country "better" than another. I am satisfied with some laws we have here, because of their political content. For others I prefer yours.
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
gpac1377
gpac1377
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 676
Joined: Apr 7, 2013
January 19th, 2014 at 8:15:40 AM permalink
I'll try to address the original question, although I admit I have no idea, really.

The question is: Are stupid people more conservative?

But I have a problem with the conventional labels, categorizing everyone as either left (liberal) or right (conservative).

I would categorize based on level of government influence. The extremes would be either minimum or maximum government. Do you prioritize individual freedom (libertarian), or do you view government as your parent (authoritarian)?

Nevada tilts libertarian, and it has a lot of stupid people.

The American South tilts authoritarian, and it also has a lot of stupid people.

The stupid Nevada people are very isolated and self-absorbed, so although they may not approve of other people's differences, they're too apathetic to do anything about it.

The stupid Southern people have deep roots and close connections. When stupid people interact, their impulse is to control other people and force everyone to behave alike, usually due to irrational fears, IMO. We see a lot of this in the Islamic world.

Stupidity breeds fear, which invites control. Control can be either liberal or conservative, but either way it requires big government.
"Scientists tell us that the fastest animal on earth, with a top speed of 120 feet per second, is a cow that has been dropped out of a helicopter."
kubikulann
kubikulann
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 905
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
January 19th, 2014 at 8:25:57 AM permalink
Yoy know, the fundamental reason for my initiating this thread was:
1. EvenBob is always ready to label any non conservative as stupid and his idols (Limbaugh, Palin, you name them) as so smart.

I have no problem with someone calling others stupid if he is more intelligent than they are. [Note: some here seem to think it is OK from Bob but not from liberals...] But:

2. He openly states he believes in bet selection and beating the house edge, etc.

My point: when you are less intelligent, don't libel others.

All the rest was for making him uncover his intellectual level. Goal achieved, the thread can be closed.
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
Twirdman
Twirdman
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
January 19th, 2014 at 8:27:02 AM permalink
I would posit there is really no link between the two, I can't seem to find the link anymore but I could have sworn I've seen a study suggesting that predisposition to conspiratorial thinking is not partisan biased, this is not to say individual conspiracies aren't partisan biased they clearly are but rather the broader range of believing in a conspiracy does not favor one party. Now I know that seems unrelated but there are many similarities between conspiracy theories and betting systems. Both are ideas rejected by the mainstream, both desire to find a complex pattern where there is none, and both are somewhat spawned by a desire to "know" more than anyone else.
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28570
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
January 19th, 2014 at 1:05:54 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

if a person is enough of an adult to make the decision to sign up for a job which can kill them, then they're certainly old enough to decide about drinking..



And obviously they aren't. Look it up, state after
state dropped law to 18 and every one of them
raised it later to 21 again. For the most part,
18 year old's are dopes. Sure they can join the
army and have some adult tell them what to
every minute of every day. They make no decisions,
they're completely supervised, even on the
battlefield. But let them sit on a bar stool for a few
hours drinking beer, and they're lucky to get
home alive.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28570
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
January 19th, 2014 at 1:11:02 PM permalink
The whole premise of this thread is patently
ridiculous. Political 'beliefs', gambling 'beliefs',
why not throw religious beliefs in there too.

The thread was started to get a rise out of
me and it worked. I hope the OP is satisfied
with what he set into motion.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
kenarman
kenarman
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 966
Joined: Nov 22, 2009
January 19th, 2014 at 3:51:50 PM permalink
My father provided the answer to this question when I was a somewhat liberal young university student and he told me the following:

"If a 20 year old is not a socialist he has no heart, if he is still a socialist at 40 he has no brains"
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
24Bingo
24Bingo
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 1348
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
January 19th, 2014 at 4:49:56 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

And obviously they aren't. Look it up, state after
state dropped law to 18 and every one of them
raised it later to 21 again.



...because the feds held their interstates hostage.

The thing is, raising the drinking age to twenty-one just has people holding on to a naivete about alcohol that much longer... or it would, if anyone followed it. So it's either encouraging lawbreaking or extending a facet of childhood, take your pick. What it isn't is magically giving them three years of life experience they're barred from actually getting.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
BizzyB
BizzyB
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 246
Joined: Nov 26, 2013
January 19th, 2014 at 5:03:16 PM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

Pretty much defines the Arrogant Liberal: the assumption that they are smarter than everybody else.



A university study was done that links low intelligence to prejudice and conservativism, as opposed to liberalism. It's also been shown that childhood IQs of liberals are higher. Other studies have been done, none of which conclude anything different than liberals are smarter. So actually, the average liberal probably is smarter than the average conservative. It's not really an assumption, more like a scientific theory...but conservatives don't believe in science, or evolution, or global warming, or...the list goes on.
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
January 19th, 2014 at 5:14:42 PM permalink
I don't believe in government or betting systems. What does that mean?
gpac1377
gpac1377
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 676
Joined: Apr 7, 2013
January 19th, 2014 at 5:19:44 PM permalink
Quote: BizzyB

A university study was done that links low intelligence to prejudice and conservativism, as opposed to liberalism.


Labels can be very tricky, but I suggest you look again at the details. Here's a similar reference:

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

Note the distinction. It's SOCIAL conservatives that are low-IQ, not conservatives generally.
"Scientists tell us that the fastest animal on earth, with a top speed of 120 feet per second, is a cow that has been dropped out of a helicopter."
BizzyB
BizzyB
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 246
Joined: Nov 26, 2013
January 19th, 2014 at 5:20:10 PM permalink
Quote: rudeboyoi

I don't believe in government or betting systems. What does that mean?



You must be a nihilist. "Are these guys gonna hurt us?" "No Donnie, these men are cowards." Big Lebowski.
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28570
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
January 19th, 2014 at 5:46:10 PM permalink
Quote: BizzyB

A university study was done that links low intelligence to prejudice and conservativism, as opposed to liberalism. .



Pure Left generated horsecrap. Post the studies
or don't mention them again. Go ahead, post
them, I dare you. Who did them and who paid
for them.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28570
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
January 19th, 2014 at 5:49:15 PM permalink
Quote: gpac1377

Labels can be very tricky, but I suggest you look again at the details. Here's a similar reference:

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html



"People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy."

Is this why some racist Dems in congress voted against
the Civil Rights Act in the 60's? Like Al Gores father?
I don't think so.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
January 19th, 2014 at 5:59:08 PM permalink
I don't understand the difference between liberals and conservatives. They're both for government. Less is still some.
kubikulann
kubikulann
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 905
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
January 19th, 2014 at 6:37:52 PM permalink
Quote: rudeboyoi

I don't understand the difference between liberals and conservatives. They're both for government. Less is still some.

You'd love Somalia, or Equatorial Guinea in the 70's. No government! Lots of dead, lots of gangs and warlords, famine, etc. Or is your model Neanderthal?
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
rudeboyoi
rudeboyoi
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2001
Joined: Mar 28, 2010
January 19th, 2014 at 7:01:30 PM permalink
Quote: kubikulann

You'd love Somalia, or Equatorial Guinea in the 70's. No government! Lots of dead, lots of gangs and warlords, famine, etc. Or is your model Neanderthal?



I know I would be capable of adapting. Chaos is an ebb and flow. Out of disorder comes order. Out of order comes disorder.
98Clubs
98Clubs
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 1728
Joined: Jun 3, 2010
January 19th, 2014 at 8:15:10 PM permalink
To answer the OPQ...
Everyone with a half-a-brain and a hidden agenda is a politician with a "system".
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
Beethoven9th
Beethoven9th
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 5072
Joined: Jul 30, 2012
January 19th, 2014 at 8:48:26 PM permalink
Quote: rudeboyoi

I don't understand the difference between liberals and conservatives. They're both for government. Less is still some.


Exactly. That's why I hate it when dishonest liberals imply that because conservatives favor limited government, then they shouldn't oppose [insert issue here]. That reasoning is just flat out s2pid.


Quote: BizzyB

A university study was done that links low intelligence to prejudice and conservativism, as opposed to liberalism. It's also been shown that childhood IQs of liberals are higher. Other studies have been done, none of which conclude anything different than liberals are smarter. So actually, the average liberal probably is smarter than the average conservative.


Oh, you mean as smart as these geniuses?

Fighting BS one post at a time!
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12164
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
January 19th, 2014 at 9:33:31 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

You never hear the opposite, that somebody is a conservative
and became a Lib.



There's a rather prominent one. All the way into her college years.

Quote:

The daughter of a Republican father and a Democratic mother, in 1960 13-year-old Hillary Rodham canvassed for Richard Nixon on Chicago's South Side. She also worked as a "Goldwater girl" in the 1964 presidential election — cowgirl outfit and all — and was elected president of the Wellesley Young Republicans as a freshman the following year



http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1894529_1894528_1894517,00.html
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28570
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
January 20th, 2014 at 12:36:48 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

There's a rather prominent one. All the way into her college years.



Way too far back. Left and Right were far different
in those days, no comparison to today. Apples and
oranges.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
January 20th, 2014 at 2:27:56 AM permalink
There will always be government no matter who is in control. It's just a matter of what rights new baby citizens have once arriving. You either have an interest and a right of participation or you don't. It's either going to be government by the people for the people or for some. Just depends on what really is the government. Could be whoever owns coke owns the government.
I am a robot.
  • Jump to: