<p>
That isn’t the only thing I read complaints about, </p>
<p>FLnative clearly said
That was a direct reference to your kind fixing, I wish a moderator took the liberty of doing that. I assure you that there are more complaints than just your Santorum opinion. I was just pointing out the most unarguable one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought he meant where I commented “fixed that for ya” and said only that liberals are more educated-- unless I’m misreading what you’re saying :P</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you read that out of context ;_; I was responding to a part of a post, it wasn’t really relevant to the discussion.</p>
<p>Anyways attempting to quantify the ‘sense’ argument is impossible, the sense statement was pure opinion-- the point of the college statistic was purely to validate the idea that liberals tend to be more educated-- and then the science daily stat was just a supporting piece of evidence in my mind because I think that education correlates strongly with IQ (although as was pointed out there’s a huge difference between IQ and sense; or plain intellect) as it’s largely become an institutionalized concept associated with the advent of western schooling.</p>
<p>
Do you think it’s impossible to “suggest” or “say” things without saying it straight out?</p>
<p>You obviously caught on to my statements when you said
</p>
<p>I don’t get it, are you really seeing you see no bias in changing someones statements to suggest that liberals are smarter? You really don’t see it? And you can’t see how pointless it was, and how little it added to answering the question of the OP?</p>
<p>If you answer nothing, do you mean it when you say you see no, zero, bias, zero insinuation, let alone how anyone could take any other interpretation on your use of the word education in context? </p>
<p>And you’re saying you were sincerely trying to help the OP with all of your comments? Including your so called fixing?</p>
<p>Please tell me, you don’t even see how anyone could possibly see bias in that? I think it’s impossible, honestly.</p>
<p>Avoid excessive rhetorical questions; you’re arguing so far into a strawman by insinuating and then arguing based off of those deductions.</p>
<p>
No, I never implied that.</p>
<p>
I suggested (re: flat out said) that liberals are more educated. I linked to statistics saying that they both have on average a higher IQ and graduate from college more than conservatives.</p>
<p>Bias is inherent in anything-- realistically there will always be some sort of bias, it’s a problem that is also necessary-- having a bias is also having a motivation, controlling the influence that bias has is what matters.</p>
<p>
Lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again I never said otherwise.</p>
<p>
Another question with an answer that means nothing… People can interpret a statement in literally infinite ways. I said education. I meant education in that post, I then quantified it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, this question is pointless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My fix was correct, unless you interpret it to mean something it inherently did not say. Again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Same question again.</p>
<p>To end this Q&A I’d like to thank my sponsors, my family, and the production team-- without them none of this would have been possible.</p>
<p>My number one question was “can you not see how people could see bias in your statements?” you’ve yet to answer unless,
I’m assuming that by saying
you are admitting, that its possible someone could see bias in your statements, but then that makes me wonder why would you say
</p>
<p>You asked that question multiple times in a few forms:</p>
<p>This is essentially the same: “Do you think it’s impossible to “suggest” or “say” things without saying it straight out?”</p>
<p>As this:</p>
<p>“I don’t get it, are you really seeing you see no bias in changing someones statements to suggest that liberals are smarter?”</p>
<p>And this:
"Please tell me, you don’t even see how anyone could possibly see bias in that? "</p>
<p>And this:
“how anyone could take any other interpretation on your use of the word education in context?”</p>
<p>My answers were:</p>
<p>Another question with an answer that means nothing… People can interpret a statement in literally infinite ways. I said education. I meant education in that post, I then quantified it.</p>
<ul>
<li>Bias is inherent in anything</li>
<li>No, I never implied that. [the answer in context to your question works as an answer]</li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because from my point of view, and given realistic standards (as in, avoiding the fact that everything has a certain level of bias) the statistics that I gave were factual rather than opinionated-- however you have to remember that this was the only part of my post I was referring to, I did not think that the person was talking about what I said of Santorum and the current state of the republican party.</p>
<p>okay guys, time to go home.</p>
<p>i am home??? ?_? wat r u saying</p>
<p>idk why you’d even bring up Santorum. He is an EXTREMIST and does not represent the majority of conservatives, just like the Black Panther Party does not represent the majority of liberals.</p>
<p>p.s- the South is Historically Democrat</p>
<p>And once again, I don’t know why you brought up your political opinion anyway, as it had nothing to do with the original question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please elaborate? Or give any evidence supporting this
EDIT: Unless you mean the pre-1964 south, wherein the political ideologies meant basically the opposite thing that they do now as the parties pretty much just switched in response to the civil rights act.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The two aren’t analogous at all… Santorum had masses of followers straight up until he withdrew yesterday, and was a conservative presidential forerunner for nearly a year.</p>
<p>
Yes, clearly, this discussion on a discussion forum has become a discussion about something else. I already said it was my opinion… You continuously trying to underhandedly tell me to shut up is really passive aggressive.</p>
<p>Yes, but you were never really discussing the topic in the first place, were you? Just because it’s a discussion on a discussion forum, doesn’t mean you’re discussing the right thing. It wasn’t an opinion question, it was a fact question, and your facts were not really related to the question</p>
<p>And I’m not telling you to be quiet about your opinions. I’m saying voice your opinion in a topic where your opinion is relevant.</p>
<p>Yes, and I never said the opinion on Santorum was relevant to the original poster. You’re just thinking I did for some reason.</p>
<p>Your opinion on my opinion is not relevant to the question posted by the OP. What now :(</p>
<p>OP, mostly argumentative!</p>
<p>
<3
i need more letters</p>
<p>Lots of things can have a “large” following. The Black Panther Party had a large following as well, just a sidenote. Also, lots of weird and extremist candidates have ran for president, for both parties. Should we single these individuals out and present them as THE face for the people of that party?
Santorum didn’t have the “majority” following him, therefore how could this man’s ideas represent the conservatives as a group?</p>
<p>I think the Santorum comment was a poorly thought out attempt to “prove your point” about the supposed negative qualities that conservatives (as a group) posess, but you picked a stupid example.</p>
<p>p.s- to answer your first question look up “Solid South”.</p>
<p>The Black Panther group peaked at 10,000 supporters (Pearson, 1994). Few members considered it more than a violent gang-- most referring to it not as a political movement at all (Forner, 2002).</p>
<p>Santorum had nearly half of all Republican states, over 280 delegates, and was neck and neck for the front-running Republican position.</p>
<p>He followed the Catholic doctrine closely, a book that leads a religion that is still widely popular among western civilization.</p>
<p>You saying he should be disregarded as an extremist is hypocritical and offensive to his supporters, as well as the electoral college from 10 states. The adage goes that you should preach what you teach.</p>
<p>PS: The solid south was exactly what I was referring to… Ideologies essentially switched after that time, and you’re only proving my point…</p>
<p>Also, ad-hominem attacks (such as calling an argument stupid) is also hypocritical and does not server you at all.</p>
<p>Yes I did prove your point, when did I say you were wrong? My initial statement wasn’t wrong either, though. lol
Like I said before, having a large following does not equal representing the majority.I don’t know why you try to deflect attention from this statement with your “statistics” and whatnot because it’s not disproving my statement. </p>
<p>Also, Santorum’s beliefs are based on Natural Law philosophies which any philosopher will tell you is an extreme “black or white” approach.
Saying he follows the Catholic doctrine, isn’t the same thing as saying he is an example of all Catholics. So this statement is irrelevant.
There are ways to observe all doctrines and Santorum observes the Bible in a LITERAL, rigid, strict and intense fashion (MOST catholics do not). By definition that is extreme…as in “not moderate”. It is not hypocritical to state so. </p>
<p>p.s- if you look up the word “stupid” you’ll see:
“Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes
Pointless; worthless”. It’s an english word with a definition relevant to my point. It’s not my fault if you feel insulted by grammar.</p>
<p>Now you can continue posting random statistics or asking me to provide a bibliography for my sources, but like someone else said “don’t feed the trolls” lol. So that’s that. You are free to believe that a group, made up of millions of Americans from diverse ethnicities and religious background, can be summed up by one man who never even had the majority of the supporters behind him lol</p>
<p>He never said that you said it was relevant to the original poster. I don’t consider myself conservative, but I still found your responses to be somewhat sanctimonious and condescending.You hopefully knew that what you posted would be somewhat contentious, you shouldn’t pretend to be a victim. </p>
<p>p.s. The very same people who “identified” as liberal in that study actually “tested” as being conservative. It kind of shows how perturbing certain external influences can be, huh?</p>
<p>Since someone bumped this thread to the top… the answer to the original question is it’s a very even split. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am going to have to go with journalism. Not a bad thing or a good thing, just the truth :)</p>