Interesting correlations on this forum

[Ricter]

To be fair, I can't see all the focus on spelling and grammar. Now, Enigma Bag^TM, that was classic.

 

[Brass]

Quote from Lucrum:

Bullshit thunderpussy/gayfly, I acknowledged my math error yesterday and the spelling errors as well an explanation of why it's not uncommon for me.

Yes, I recall you went to great lengths yesterday to explain yourself. Something you should do daily. However, you usually scoff at any criticism, direct or implied, in your ability to communicate effectively as an adult.

 

[Brass]

Quote from Ricter:

To be fair, I can't see all the focus on spelling and grammar. Now, Enigma Bag^TM, that was classic.

It was the moment at which Lucrum became self-aware. We'll all remember where we were that day.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Brass:

Yes, I recall you went to great lengths yesterday to explain yourself. Something you should do daily. However, you usually scoff at any criticism, direct or implied, in your ability to communicate effectively as an adult.

More bull shit, you sure are full of it. <s>today.</s>

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jcl:

When looking over people's opinions on this forum, I found some strange correlations of world views that have seemingly nothing to do with each other. In fact, two belief sets are strongly internally correlated:

Set A: Belief in religion, not accepting global warming, belief in some conspiracy theories (faked birth certificates, Bin Laden still alive etc.), against Obama, against foreign aid, against homosexuality, and in favor of free weapon sales.

Set B: no religion, accepting global warming, no belief in conspiracy theories, in favor of Obama, in favor of foreign aid, accepting homosexuality, and against free weapon sales.

I can not really see why a religious person also must believe in conspiracy theories - maybe because both religion and conspiracy assume a sort of hidden reality? but this seems sort of far fetched. Also I do not see why religion is so strong anticorrelated to acceptance of global warming and to weapons control, as all three have apparently nothing to do with each other. And why are nonreligious people in favor of Obama although he's sort of religious?

Is this the basic struggle between irrationalism and rationalism? Or are there really only two different sets of world views in the US? Or are only two people posting on this forum under lots of different names?

- Interestingly, the forum administrator seems to participate by overriding thread ratings: the members on this forum are evenly distributed among A and B, but set A posts are always rated 5 stars and set B post always 1 star. I'd wager the administrator has the 'A' mindset.

Set A: Belief in religion, not accepting global warming, belief in some conspiracy theories (faked birth certificates, Bin Laden still alive etc.), against Obama, against foreign aid, against homosexuality, and in favor of free weapon sales.

Good, but I would add this.......


........... not wanting to help the less fortunate. Oh yeah, maybe the people in their church, maybe, but most of them are of the "every man for himself" mindset. Selfishness rules and compassion is for sissies. They think we spend too much helping people. Welfare? It's just for leeches and we should cut it. etc. Where do righties want to cut costs? The social safety-net of course. Never the DOD.

Which is bizarre because they are supposed to be the Christians.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from bigarrow:

You and Lucrum have terrets syndrome, you spout off irrelevant and off topic nonsense.

What was your previous screen name ?

terrets syndrome, never heard of it .
perhaps you meant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourette_syndrome

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from Lucrum:

Forgotten eh? I'll think that just might be my next excuse. Ya think gabby and nurse RCG will approve when I do?

I don't know for sure if I forgot or not. But I've read enough over the years I'm sure I've seen it spelled correctly. Along with quite a few more I'll misspell in the future.

 

[Mav88]

Quote from jcl:

When looking over people's opinions on this forum, I found some strange correlations of world views that have seemingly nothing to do with each other. In fact, two belief sets are strongly internally correlated:

Set A: Belief in religion, not accepting global warming, belief in some conspiracy theories (faked birth certificates, Bin Laden still alive etc.), against Obama, against foreign aid, against homosexuality, and in favor of free weapon sales.

Set B: no religion, accepting global warming, no belief in conspiracy theories, in favor of Obama, in favor of foreign aid, accepting homosexuality, and against free weapon sales.

I can not really see why a religious person also must believe in conspiracy theories - maybe because both religion and conspiracy assume a sort of hidden reality? but this seems sort of far fetched. Also I do not see why religion is so strong anticorrelated to acceptance of global warming and to weapons control, as all three have apparently nothing to do with each other. And why are nonreligious people in favor of Obama although he's sort of religious?

Is this the basic struggle between irrationalism and rationalism? Or are there really only two different sets of world views in the US? Or are only two people posting on this forum under lots of different names?

- Interestingly, the forum administrator seems to participate by overriding thread ratings: the members on this forum are evenly distributed among A and B, but set A posts are always rated 5 stars and set B post always 1 star. I'd wager the administrator has the 'A' mindset.

the biggest conspiracy wackos on here are the 9/11 inside job boys, and they tend to be lefties.

You forgot a few catagories:

Set C. Adherents to the liberal religion, very dogmatic, closed minded, all government is good, compassion is liberal government, Obama is transcendant, gays somehow are more enlightened than others, people need to be controlled, and never question the veracity of the following holy writs: global warming, egalitarianism except for anything traditional white western, multiculturalism except for traditional white western, socialism

Set D. no religion including liberalism, questions everything, freedom over socialism (the most reviled by liberals), compassion is compassion, Obama is just another lefty with highly inflated credentials, global warming does not mean we need liberalism, use reason instead of liberal religion with regard to weapons, foreign aid is a case by case situation and should not be accepted at face value as good, homosexuals are free to engage but make unreasonable demands for much more than that- then play childish games by calling you hateful if you don't agree

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:

To be fair, I can't see all the focus on spelling and grammar...

No? What else do gayfly and RCG have?

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Set A: Belief in religion, not accepting global warming, belief in some conspiracy theories (faked birth certificates, Bin Laden still alive etc.), against Obama, against foreign aid, against homosexuality, and in favor of free weapon sales.

Good, but I would add this.......


........... not wanting to help the less fortunate. Oh yeah, maybe the people in their church, maybe, but most of them are of the "every man for himself" mindset. Selfishness rules and compassion is for sissies. They think we spend too much helping people. Welfare? It's just for leeches and we should cut it. etc. Where do righties want to cut costs? The social safety-net of course. Never the DOD.

Which is bizarre because they are supposed to be the Christians.

The social safety net is an unsustainable set of programs, the largest of which are also unfunded lol. AND at present they cost MORE than defense. Defense of the country, defense of private property, and defense of our rights, is the federal governments purpose.. nothing more, nothing less.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

- James Madison "the father of the Constitution"