Political views are reflected in brain structure

Apr 07, 2011

We all know that people at opposite ends of the political spectrum often really can't see eye to eye. Now, a new report published online on April 7th in Current Biology reveals that those differences in political orientation are tied to differences in the very structures of our brains.

Individuals who call themselves liberal tend to have larger anterior cingulate cortexes, while those who call themselves conservative have larger amygdalas. Based on what is known about the functions of those two brain regions, the structural differences are consistent with reports showing a greater ability of liberals to cope with conflicting information and a greater ability of conservatives to recognize a threat, the researchers say.

"Previously, some psychological traits were known to be predictive of an individual's political orientation," said Ryota Kanai of the University College London. "Our study now links such with specific brain structure."

Kanai said his study was prompted by reports from others showing greater response to conflicting information among liberals. "That was the first neuroscientific evidence for biological differences between liberals and conservatives," he explained.

There had also been many prior psychological reports showing that conservatives are more sensitive to threat or anxiety in the face of uncertainty, while liberals tend to be more open to new experiences. Kanai's team suspected that such fundamental differences in personality might show up in the brain.

And, indeed, that's exactly what they found. Kanai says they can't yet say for sure which came first. It's possible that brain structure isn't set in early life, but rather can be shaped over time by our experiences. And, of course, some people have been known to change their views over the course of a lifetime.

It's also true that our political persuasions can fall into many more categories than liberal and conservative. "In principle, our research method can be applied to find differences in political dimensions other than the simplistic left- versus right-wingers," Kanai said. Perhaps differences in the brain explain why some people really have no interest in politics at all or why some people line up for Macs while others stick with their PCs. All of these tendencies may be related in interesting ways to the peculiarities of our personalities and in turn to the way our brains are put together.

Still, Kanai cautioned against taking the findings too far, citing many uncertainties about how the correlations they see come about.

"It's very unlikely that actual political orientation is directly encoded in these ," he said. "More work is needed to determine how these brain structures mediate the formation of political attitude."

Explore further: Cyber buddy is better than 'no buddy'

Related Stories

Researchers find a 'liberal gene'

Oct 27, 2010

Liberals may owe their political outlook partly to their genetic make-up, according to new research from the University of California, San Diego, and Harvard University. Ideology is affected not just by social factors, but ...

Brain structure corresponds to personality

Jun 22, 2010

Personalities come in all kinds. Now psychological scientists have found that the size of different parts of people's brains correspond to their personalities; for example, conscientious people tend to have a bigger lateral ...

People apply principles inconsistently, study finds

Oct 08, 2010

Is it morally appropriate to sacrifice the life of an innocent person to save the lives of several others? David Pizarro, Cornell assistant professor of psychology, put a fresh spin on this classic question from philosophy.

Recommended for you

Cyber buddy is better than 'no buddy'

6 hours ago

A Michigan State University researcher is looking to give exercise enthusiasts the extra nudge they need during a workout, and her latest research shows that a cyber buddy can help.

Offenders turn to mental health services 

11 hours ago

Adult criminal offenders in Western Australian are eight times more likely than non-offenders to use community-based mental health services in the year before their first sentence, a UWA study has found.

Deliberation is staunchest ally of selfishness

12 hours ago

(Medical Xpress)—Over the last two years, Yale psychologist David Rand and colleagues have investigated what makes people willing to help each other. Their latest research shows that while initial reactions ...

User comments : 116

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (12) Apr 07, 2011
Well... So much for free will eh?

Otto is certain he has both structures of immense size and exquisite convolution.
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2011
Well... So much for free will eh?


I used to be a "card carrying" communist when I was 18.

Now I think that government should pay for the courts, the cops, and the military, and that's about it.

That's about as big a rebuttal as you can get to this article, or at least your take on it.
hypermach
5 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2011
I wonder what % of the population has which of these traits?
Quantum_Conundrum
3.5 / 5 (22) Apr 07, 2011
I used to be a "card carrying" communist when I was 18.

Now I think that government should pay for the courts, the cops, and the military, and that's about it.

That's about as big a rebuttal as you can get to this article, or at least your take on it.


So you don't think government should make roads and bridges?

You don't think government should help distribute resources in a fair manner?

You don't think government should assist in disaster planning and response?

You know, they tried it that way years ago. It lead to monopolys where the owners murdered anyone who asked for a raise.

Social security and medicaid exist because employers refuse to pay a fair wage to working class people, therefore they cannot afford their own medical care and retirement.
OdieNewton
5 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2011
Ok, before this comment stream turns into a political boxing ring, let's reflect on the actual article, please.

I think this is rather interesting, and would like to know the extent of the causality of the relationship between brain structure. Neuroscientists say that people like cab drivers and golfers develop very specific traits in their brains due to years of certain activity. You'd notice that the cab driver has a greater capability (hopefully) than most to retain spatial information, such as routes and landmarks. Golfers show changes in motor control areas of the brain.

Maybe the same applies to political ideals.

Ok, now if you want to scream about the role of government and whatever else, I hear Gmail has a pretty good chat function.
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (20) Apr 07, 2011
So you don't think government should make roads and bridges?


No.

You don't think government should help distribute resources in a fair manner?


Fair to whom? And no.

You don't think government should assist in disaster planning and response?


Depends on the disaster, but generally that would fall under policing functions and or the military depending on the scale. If you're asking me if we need FEMA...no.

You know, they tried it that way years ago. It lead to monopolys where the owners murdered anyone who asked for a raise.


No, they never tried that, and monopolies are maintained by twisting government regulations to your benefit and artificial market barriers.

Social security and medicaid exist because employers refuse to pay a fair wage to working class people, therefore they cannot afford their own medical care and retirement.


What's "a fair wage"? As to the rest, it's your story tell it however you want...
Question
4.2 / 5 (17) Apr 07, 2011

I used to be a "card carrying" communist when I was 18.

Now I think that government should pay for the courts, the cops, and the military, and that's about it.

That's about as big a rebuttal as you can get to this article, or at least your take on it.

Well it figures, you went from one extreme to the other.
DirkSJ
2.5 / 5 (13) Apr 07, 2011
Social security and medicaid exist because employers refuse to pay a fair wage to working class people, therefore they cannot afford their own medical care and retirement.

They pay them the going market rate; that is by definition a fair wage. If they want to be paid more they should learn to do work that is worth more.
Thrasymachus
1.3 / 5 (15) Apr 07, 2011
So basically, liberals tend to see conflict where none exists, and attempt to pointlessly compromise between those conflicts, while conservative tend to jump at shadows, inventing and magnifying threats.

If I had to pick which of those two errors I was prone to, I think it'd be pretty obvious which one ought to choose.
comendant
2 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2011
People need to understand we are still using a 7,000 year old Babylonian system as a means for social control called the Price System. So, I'll leave it at that for my political rant.

This study and OdieNewtons comments are very interesting. I also remember another article that mentioned the ability of an adult mind to change. I might be mistaken, I barely had time to read it but does anybody remember this or have a link?
kaasinees
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 07, 2011
People need to understand we are still using a 7,000 year old Babylonian system as a means for social control called the Price System. So, I'll leave it at that for my political rant.


Social control? You mean economical control?
If you are implying that currency is a bad thing i dont agree, the people who abuse the system are the bad thing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2011
If I had to pick which of those two errors I was prone to, I think it'd be pretty obvious which one ought to choose.
But, see dear philo, it's not a CHOICE. You are unable to freely choose because your brain is already prewired to choose for you. You might THINK you are choosing freely, it might FEEL as if your powers to reason have enabled you to choose wisely, but you and all your tweedy forebears would be mistaken.

Try to fit your cognition around that factoid. Your intellect is usurped by the unique structure of your own individual brain. And this is not by far the only thing which hobbles you. Your will is significantly fettered.
Turritopsis
1.9 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2011
Conservatives are memory based, their future projections are based upon past events (they think inside the box). - those who don't know their past are destined to repeat it -

Liberals are creativity based, their future projections are based upon innovation they use intelligence to problem solve (they think outside of the box). - when faced with New problems adaptive thinking is critical -

Centrists are politically neutral, they use their memory as well as creativity.

Forms of government (ie democracy, socialism, communism) are all basically the same - read The Republic by Plato to see why - the differences are minimal. True democracy does not exist - democracy means that everyone gets an equal vote - all democracies have elected representatives that make laws, their votes are the ones that count, not the general publics.

Now: civilized society (ruled by law) - Next: anarchy (lawless society) - After Next: tyranny (ruled by kings)... The cycle repeats in this order.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2011
Continuing my previous post regarding the philos self-deception:

Your neurological configuration draws your attention to the things which it favors, and colors them appropriately. It applies different values to perceived alternatives without your realizing it is doing so. It causes you to seek out people with similar configurations, to read articles written by like-minded people, to restrict your avenues of inquiry.

It gives you your opinions not because they make more sense but because they simply FEEL better, and it confounds your intellect with illusions that IT was the thing which opined. Pretty sad eh?
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (12) Apr 07, 2011
@Thrasymachus,
So basically, liberals tend to see conflict where none exists
I don't think that's a correct interpretation. The anterior cingulate tends to light up when the brain DETECTS contradiction in stimuli (or in ideas, if you will.) If the cingulate is more developed in liberals, it would seem to indicate that they would be more given to rationality, more sensitive to hypocrisy, as well as more resistant against Orwellian double-speak.

Now, you might hypothesize that high sensitivity to contradiction would lead to false positives. However, that's not necessarily the case. For instance, an enhanced capacity for facial recognition doesn't imply heightened rates of misapprehension (quite to the contrary.)
jamesrm
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2011
so can if we track the difference down to genetic level, maybe we can construct a virus to kill all the conservatives thus reducing the population in the right way.

so say the illuminati
ha ha ha ha!

That should scare all the Glen Beckers out there cowering in their fallout shelters he sells to them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2011
it would seem to indicate that they would be more given to rationality, more sensitive to hypocrisy, as well as more resistant against Orwellian double-speak.
Ah PE I see that you too are self-deluded by the polarized words you use. Don't you see, conservatives whose brains are lopsided in the opposing direction would use those exact same words to describe YOU.

Extreme positions per the article are due to a relative lack of brain matter. I suggest eating more fish and going to monster truck rallies.
CarolinaScotsman
5 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2011
...more sensitive to hypocrisy...

Anyone who was more sensitive to hypocrisy would have burned out on politics long ago.
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2011
Now, you might hypothesize that high sensitivity to contradiction would lead to false positives. However, that's not necessarily the case. For instance, an enhanced capacity for facial recognition doesn't imply heightened rates of misapprehension (quite to the contrary.)
That's precisely what I hypothesize, and actually, your example is wrong, and speaks perfectly to what I claim. We see faces everywhere, from the front of cars, to the bark of trees, to the patterns on toast. Winnowing out false positives from true positives isn't usually as important in a survival sense as getting the positive response every time the correct triggering stimulus occurs.

Anyone who was more sensitive to hypocrisy would have burned out on politics long ago
That might explain why political participation rates on the left are lower than on the right.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2011

Well it figures, you went from one extreme to the other.


"Extreme" depends on where you're looking from, nothing else.

Moreover, what's your point. If you had a valid one it wasn't apparent at all.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2011
I also remember another article that mentioned the ability of an adult mind to change. I might be mistaken, I barely had time to read it but does anybody remember this or have a link?
It is "Adult brains capable of rapid new growth" on
physorg.com/news/
2011-04-adult-brains-capable-rapid-growth.html .
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2011
We see faces everywhere, from the front of cars, to the bark of trees, to the patterns on toast.
Well, not quite. My example was about face _recognition_, as opposed to face _detection_.
Winnowing out false positives from true positives isn't usually as important in a survival sense as getting the positive response every time the correct triggering stimulus occurs.
True. Usually...
political participation rates on the left are lower than on the right
The left tends to tune out of politics until/unless there is some kind of a palpable crisis or injustice that needs addressing. Also, the younger people tend to engage in politics because they haven't yet had enough experience to know what it's really about and how it really works. So on the left, you consistently see a larger youth turnout, with a corresponding drop-off in older voters.

Popular urban myth says older people become more conservative. I'd say older liberals are just more disillusioned and discouraged.
Question
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2011
Modernmystic:
My point of view is that a modern civilized society must consider the conservative and liberal points of view. Socialism starts in the family unit but if it ended there we would still be living in the jungle fending off aggressive neighbors everyday. But at the same time, those that produce the most must receive the most. It is all really a matter of balance.
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2011
Socialism starts in the family unit but if it ended there we would still be living in the jungle fending off aggressive neighbors everyday.


I guess that all depends on how you define it. There's a difference between DEPENDENCE and INTERdependence. One is never healthy and the other is necessary for civilization and they are two VERY different concepts.

But at the same time, those that produce the most must receive the most.


By produce I assume you refer only to the Marxist theory of labor? What do you get if you pound a hammer in the dirt for 8 hours a day for a month? THAT'S the value of labor. True value and production rest in invention, ideas, and human ingenuity. This will become more apparent as we move to an economy completely devoid of human physical labor.

It is all really a matter of balance.


Not really. You don't need to strike a balance with creationists to get a valid view of cosmic origin do you?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2011
PinkElephant:

"Popular urban myth says older people become more conservative. I'd say older liberals are just more disillusioned and discouraged."

There are not that many "true" liberals to begin with, free thinkers are the exception of the populace, what most "liberals" are is open to the idea of creative progress, most liberals are conservative personality type (dependant on learned stuff), but they choose to be acceptive of new innovative ideas. Those content with the way things are slow down progress, so in actuality as we get older we do tend toward learned thought - wisdom - or conservatism (there are of course exceptions to every societal rule).
PinkElephant
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2011
There's a difference between DEPENDENCE and INTERdependence. One is never healthy and the other is necessary
Uh, really, NEVER healthy? Children depending on parents isn't healthy? The elderly depending on their children isn't healthy? Orphans depending on ...?

AFAIK, most socialists indeed focus on INTERdependence (i.e./e.g. a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, etc.), while their critics ascribe to them some sinister conspiracy toward DEPENDENCE. There are also matters of FAIRNESS and JUSTICE that you haven't considered.
True value and production rest in invention, ideas, and human ingenuity.
When was the last time you satiated your hunger, sheltered within, healed, groomed, or clothed yourself with ideas and ingenuity?
This will become more apparent as we move to an economy completely devoid of human physical labor.
Do you REALLY think 10+ Billion people will all just be inventing and pontificating 24/7? Somehow I don't see that quite working out...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2011
I also remember another article that mentioned the ability of an adult mind to change. I might be mistaken, I barely had time to read it but does anybody remember this or have a link?
It is "Adult brains capable of rapid new growth" on
physorg.com/news/
2011-04-adult-brains-capable-rapid-growth.html .
Thats why liberals should watch WWE wrestling on tv, and glenn beck wherever he goes, to correct their brain deficits.
The left tends to tune out of politics until/unless there is some kind of a palpable crisis or injustice that needs addressing.
Again you betray your lack of symmetry. The left typically identifies more issues which they consider crises and which they feel govt ought to be dealing with. The left wants govt to be fixing more things, usually, while the right will accept more things as they are.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2011
Uh, really, NEVER healthy? Children depending on parents isn't healthy? The elderly depending on their children isn't healthy? Orphans depending on?


Way to knock down that strawman idiot.

AFAIK, most socialists indeed focus on INTERdependence


You'd be wrong. Most focus on handouts.

There are also matters of FAIRNESS and JUSTICE that you haven't considered.


LMFAO. That's ironic...

When was the last time you satiated your hunger, sheltered within, healed, groomed, or clothed yourself with ideas and ingenuity?


Every single day, just like you. Do you think all those things are the product of LABOR? LOL. Labor brings them to the masses, but they're produced in the mind before any slack jawed moron in a factory claims he did it on his own...

Do you REALLY think 10+ Billion people will all just be inventing and pontificating 24/7? Somehow I don't see that quite working


You're lack of imagination is equaled only by the size of your inflated ego.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2011
The left typically identifies more issues which they consider crises and which they feel govt ought to be dealing with.
You are confusing left-wing politicians with left-wing voters. Obviously, politicians will try to manufacture crises and issues in an attempt to attract the vote. However, whether or not the voters actually pay attention or show up at the polls, is another matter entirely.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2011
Left wing voters who put their politicians into office do so on the expectation that they will be fixing all the many little problems they perceive in the world, by passing laws. Conservatives on the whole expect govt to stay out of their affairs and to combat those who want to impinge, ie liberals.

Libs see more problems that need fixing, and think that govt and laws can do this for them. Perhaps we see more conservative voter turnouts because they are reacting to the only thing lawmakers can do to let people know they are doing their jobs; that is, making laws which in fact may not need to be made.

Per the article, perhaps they are reacting to the perceived threat of govt infringing on their rights.

Although your perception may be due to your cranial deficit, because over the years many more dems have been elected to office than their enemies.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2011
PinkElephant:

Left wing politicians try to invent new ways of bettering the civilization, don't know if you'd label that a crisis per se, but you're definitely right in the logic. Social programs although costly add to economical growth. Education allows for technological advancement, healthcare allows for longer more productive lives. Social programs help civilizations flourish. Removing them is the end of civilization, minimal government involvement is a libertarian society where everyones independent. Libertarianism is a soft form of anarchy. Taking out social programs unravels civilizations. Politicians at the top must keep things running smoothly. If too many people are poor who will buy the products that the rich produce?

PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2011
Left wing voters who put their politicians into office do so on the expectation that they will be fixing all the many little problems they perceive in the world, by passing laws.
Perhaps true of some; I suspect most these days simply do so to defend what's already been implemented/legislated, from attacks by those who'd like to dismantle it. In effect, one might call that a "conservative" behavior (in the true sense of the word.) For many voters it's a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils.
perhaps they are reacting to the perceived threat of govt infringing on their rights.
Perhaps. Although in most cases I suspect they're really reacting to govt crimping someone else's style, with that someone else being wealthy and influential.
over the years many more dems have been elected to office than their enemies
Confusing dems with liberals? Ever since at least Bill Clinton's DLC, the dems have been 'republican lite', and captives of Wall Street.
Javinator
5 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2011
Interesting how the comments in this thread support the general spirit of the article. Although the sizes of the brain areas of the posters aren't readily available, the traits of the self proclaimed left and right seem consistent with those described in the article.

And, indeed, that's exactly what they found. Kanai says they can't yet say for sure which came first. It's possible that brain structure isn't set in early life, but rather can be shaped over time by our experiences.


Probably the most interesting part of the article. Suggests that the answer to the nature vs. nurture debate could be based whether different areas of the brain are able to grow based on experience or whether they're hardwired due to genetics or that it's a combination of both (which seems likely to me).
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2011
Confusing dems with liberals? Ever since at least Bill Clinton's DLC, the dems have been 'republican lite', and captives of Wall Street.
From your perspective that is, which you must admit may be tainted by a paucity of amygdalan vital stuff. Per the article.

Since I am typically ambivalent toward political causes, believing that they are all contrived and preconceived (because they CAN be), my brain regions must all be full to overflowing.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2011
From your perspective that is
Takes perspective to appreciate the true state of affairs (e.g. do you even know what DLC is/was?) If you want objective measures, what is the quotient of Wall Street mavens in Obama's cabinet and in charge of domestic policy? How many big-time banks have been broken up, and their executive echelons imprisoned for life, on charges of massive wire, contract, and document fraud, money laundering, bribery, violation of fiduciary responsibility, and theft in the aftermath of the latest financial crisis (as compared to the far smaller S&L crisis back in the Reagan years?) How many dems these days stand up for fair trade (as opposed to free trade)? How many stand for fiscal discipline?
Since I am typically ambivalent toward political causes, believing that they are all contrived and preconceived
You're not far off the mark. These days, there is only one real political force in our country: Wall Street.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2011
Polarizing words:
mavens
big-time
eschelons
fraud
DLC

-Your opinions are not your own.
You're not far off the mark. These days, there is only one real political force in our country: Wall Street.
-And who invented wall st and for what Purpose? And Who owns it and makes it do what it needs to do? (hint: its NOT about GREED)

Your brain geometry tells you which flavor of propaganda you prefer. No matter- its all written by the same PR Agency.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2011
Your opinions are not your own.
Nuts! Now you've done it: you've annihilated all of my knowledge, arguments, and self-esteem with one fell blow. I stand naked before the blinding, searing truth. Whatever shall I do?
who invented wall st
Why does everything have to be invented by somebody? Does nothing just emerge organically in your comic-book universe?
its all written by the same PR Agency
This particular propaganda item (C) 2010 (?) by Otto1923 (or his ghost, or his publicist, or whatever...)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2011
Nuts! Now you've done it: you've annihilated all of my knowledge, arguments, and self-esteem with one fell blow. I stand naked before the blinding, searing truth.
Not me. Science. Is thrashymuchus naked too?
Does nothing just emerge organically in your comic-book universe?
Not if it can be avoided. Duh.
This particular propaganda item (C) 2010 (?) by Otto1923 (or his ghost, or his publicist, or whatever...)
Or somebody else with the same name.

Per the article:
"...a greater ability of liberals to cope with conflicting information"

-There is far too little info in the article. It reads like asstrology (or philosophy), open to wide interpretation. For instance, what does 'cope' mean? The ability to accept disparities between reason and dogma without thought perhaps, as in religionism or philospeak? As in doublethink? If I were conservative I might tend to conclude this, because of my massive amygdala. In relation to the other thing that is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2011
-The other thing being the anterior cingulate cortex of course. What did you think? In reality, 'cope' could be taken to mean either the ability to sort out conflicting info, or to accept it as-is, unresolved.

Which one did you think it was PE? In either case it was the structure of your brain and not your naked intellect which made the choice. So much for 'free' 'will'. Perhaps you've been naked all along but nobody wanted to tell you. Like philos are.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2011
-The other thing being the anterior cingulate cortex of course. What did you think?
Or are you still thinking about airplanes?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2011
Which one did you think it was PE? In either case it was the structure of your brain and not your naked intellect which made the choice.
I'm afraid your perspicacity has rather badly failed you this time, Otto. I actually know a little something about brain structure and function (one of my bachelor's degrees is in Cognitive Science.)

Like I said before, the anterior cingulate has been demonstrated to be a key component in DETECTION of contradiction. RESOLUTION of contradiction actually tends to rely more on the prefrontal/orbitofrontal cortices.
If I were conservative I might tend to conclude this, because of my massive amygdala
Eh, no, in that case that would just be your massive ignorance... But nobody has accused you of being a conservative so far, which makes the point moot. Eh?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2011
Excellent. Perhaps your prefrontal regions can compensate for paucity in other areas, which cause you to favor liberal viewpoints, or to think there's a substantial difference between one dogma and the next.
But nobody has accused you of being a conservative so far
Many liberals have done just this while many conservatives have called me a socialist and statist, if that is even a real thing.

We now know that the difficulties in categorizing otto is due to the unnatural size and resulting delicate nature of the human brain, which is usually more defective than not in the human animal.

Do you concur?
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2011
cause you to favor liberal viewpoints
I may favor some, even most, but not all. The definition of "liberal" can also be somewhat nebulous (a fair quantity of my viewpoints would be more accurately classified as libertarian.)
to think there's a substantial difference between one dogma and the next
Is there a difference between New Deal vs. no New Deal? Between abortion rights vs. no abortion rights, or gay marriage vs. gay bashing, or foreign interventionism vs. isolationism, or free trade vs. fair trade, or a balanced budget vs. chronic deficits and intractable debt? I tend to imagine there probably is, but please feel free to show otherwise.
difficulties in categorizing otto
Most people don't fit neatly into a given political niche. So you aren't all that special (sorry!) Individual ideas and stances are far more easily characterized, than the entire assemblage thereof, as a whole within a particular mind at a particular time.
Turritopsis
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2011
Libertarians are anti-social by nature, a society comprised entirely of independents is no society at all. Modern lives are the cause of good politics: healthcare, education, social assistance etc. These social programs are the backbone of our civilization, without them our civilization can't stand.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2011
so can if we track the difference down to genetic level, maybe we can construct a virus to kill all the conservatives thus reducing the population in the right way.

What a surprise, NOT.
A supposedly 'tolerant' 'liberal' taking about eugenics to rid the world of their opponents.

These social programs are the backbone of our civilization, without them our civilization can't stand.

It is really sad so many believe such tripe.
PinkElephant
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2011
What a surprise, NOT.
You can't tell an obvious joke from a serious statement. What a surprise, NOT.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2011
Is there a difference between New Deal vs. no New Deal? Between abortion rights vs. no abortion rights, or gay marriage vs. gay bashing, or foreign int
etcetcblahblah... The key is that there is a proper Time for either. The human condition is unavoidably cyclic in nature; growth, decay, collapse, rebirth. This means that different dogmae are appropriate at different times; hence democracy, which can turn on a dime. Read your bible.

http://www.bibleg...sion=NIV
Most people don't fit neatly into a given political niche. So you aren't all that special (sorry!)
'Everything is beautiful in it's own Time' -especially and including also otto.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2011
What a surprise, NOT.
You can't tell an obvious joke from a serious statement. What a surprise, NOT.

Jokes about killing people you don't like is tolerated by 'liberals'?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2011
@PE
You will note the language you use vs the language marjon uses to describe your pet dogmae. Each of you pick the same sort of polarizing and derisive terms which is great for lively discourse but never gets either side anywhere. Either side can even use the term Nazi to describe the other, an indication of how useful or useless the term is.

But without the rhetoric either stance can have valid applications when appropriate. The key is to ensure that one side or the other is given sway at the right Time.

Washington politicians on both sides of the aisle have a vested interest in the proper functioning of the Illusion. Both sides will work to maintain it. That's why we can see a boehner or a pelosi saying something obviously stupid, or proposing a pointlessly contentious bill, in order to manipulate the course of things toward a preconcieved Outcome. This is called politics.
===>
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2011
But in a much larger sense it is called the Management of Civilizations and has been occurring since the beginning of them. One need only acknowledge the existence of Issues above and beyond the scope of visible govts and politicians, to begin to explore the possibility that Something has evolved naturally in order to deal with them.

Something which needs to operate safely beyond public scrutiny. Because the Issues it must deal with- survival in the face of overpopulation and the resultant calamity, conflict, and collapse- entail Solutions which the people would never accept.

We can also begin to recognize as we look at the world that these these things are obviously being dealt with because the world endures and Progress persists. We can watch the boehners and pelosis and obamas and bushes each Playing their own assigned Parts in order to ensure that it does.

Hail Empire.
jonnyboy
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2011
This is so obvious, as I am sure we all agree, because anyone with a brain is fiscally conservative and everyone without one is fiscally liberal.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2011
"If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."
Churchill
Turritopsis
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2011
Liberals are the ones that created the world the conservatives cling to. Churchill didn't differentiate between memory and creativity. What good is information if you encounter an unknown? Only those with the ability to create can change the world, the ones that remember the construct are able to retain it.

Both liberals and conservatives are incomplete, centrists take the best from both worlds. Using creative means when dealing with known problems is time wasteful. Working from memory is the most time efficient way of resolution in those instances. Memory won't help you when what you know is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Churchill was unknowingly speaking of wisdom, he confused wisdom with brains, and that's alright, in his time we didn't know what we do now.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2011
Liberals are the ones that created the world

Of course you are referring to the classical liberals that promote individual liberty and limited govt.
Question
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2011
This is so obvious, as I am sure we all agree, because anyone with a brain is fiscally conservative and everyone without one is fiscally liberal.

You forgot to finish it, anyone with a brain is also socially liberal and anyone who is a social conservative doesn't have one. A fiscal conservative social liberal has the best of both worlds.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2011
Only those with the ability to create can change the world, the ones that remember the construct are able to retain it.
Those with the ability to destroy can also change the world, and they will tend to outnumber those who can create. There needs to be, and there is, a System in place to deal with this disparity.
pauljpease
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2011
@modernmystic,

I'll bet $1000 that you fall into the "conservative" category according to the results of this research. What's ironic is that the article is about how conservatives have a harder time dealing with conflicting information, and your certainty in your viewpoint, despite the nearly infinite complexity of the issues you're discussing, fits exactly with that.

I really hope that you get your wish of a truly free market, you might see what it's really like to live in the stone age. Free markets were tried for most of human history, mostly because there were no institutions with enough resources to enforce any kind of regulations. Not-so-coincidentally, all major civilizations prior to the modern era practiced slavery. Slavery is the logical outcome of a free market system, where those with the power get to do whatever they want.

Also, citing you were a communist at 18 but are not a conservative does not refute this research, the brain is still developing into mid-20s.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2011
Slavery is the logical outcome of a free market system

Why?
Socialists are slaves to that state.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2011
Slavery is the logical outcome of a free market system

Why?
Socialists are slaves to that state.
-As are you to your oversized amygdala. In relation to the other thing that is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2011
Also, citing you were a communist at 18 but are not a conservative does not refute this research, the brain is still developing into mid-20s.
Not all of it, not by a long shot. The human brain is too resource-hungry to remain at optimum levels for long:
http://www.foxnew...,00.html

-it starts to refine what it has, and actually begins to lose mass, shortly after adolescence.
Moebius
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2011
I always knew there was something wrong with republicans.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 10, 2011
I always knew there was something wrong with republicans.

Not too long ago there were a few national socialists who made the same claim about Jews and other 'undesirables'.
Parsec
4.3 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2011
Left wing voters who put their politicians into office do so on the expectation that they will be fixing all the many little problems they perceive in the world, by passing laws. Conservatives on the whole expect govt to stay out of their affairs and to combat those who want to impinge, ie liberals.

Not really. Conservatives want to enact laws that favor them and their religious beliefs. For example gay marriage and criminal punishment. They want government interference in peoples lives whenever people do things that offend them. I find most conservative positions very hypocritical, unrealistic and impractical. Examples, defunding woman's pregnancy health services while raging at abortion. It must be that built-in left wing sensitivity to bull excretions. Show me one pro-life right winger and I will change my mind.
Walfy
3.4 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2011
Liberal brain: good will to all people.
Conservative brain: me and my own come first and only. To hell with the rest.
Classic battle between altruism/risk taking and selfishness/fear.
Probably a corollary in the brain structure, but big deal.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 10, 2011
Liberal brain: good will to all people.

Except for unborn babies.
BTW, what pays for this good will? Other people's money.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2011
Liberal brain: good will to all people.

Except for unborn babies.
BTW, what pays for this good will? Other people's money.

I always knew there was something wrong with republicans.

Not too long ago there were a few national socialists who made the same claim about Jews and other 'undesirables'.
STOP IT STOP IT! Can't you all see that you only believe in the the things you do because your BRAINS are LOPSIDED??

Humans. You're all imbeciles.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2011
You call your defects 'personalities' like they're something to be proud of. Grow up.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2011
I'll bet $1000 that you fall into the "conservative" category according to the results of this research.


PM me and I'll tell you where to send that money.

your certainty in your viewpoint, despite the nearly infinite complexity of the issues you're discussing, fits exactly with that.


Which parts of your viewpoint aren't you certain of? If you're not certain how do you know I'm not right in mine? Do you know what an axiom is?

Free markets were tried for most of human history, mostly because there were no institutions with enough resources to enforce any kind of regulations.

Most of human history has been authoritarian government of the worst kind with virtually no freedom in the markets. Buy a book.

Slavery is the logical outcome of a free market system, where those with the power get to do whatever they want.


No slavery is what you get when you're forced to give up your time or goods under duress. That's the default condition of socialism.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2011
Conservatives want to enact laws that favor them and their religious beliefs.


And leftists want laws that jibe with their own narrow morality and "social justice". They are two sides of the exact same coin.

They want government interference in peoples lives whenever people do things that offend them.


So, heavy taxes on cigarettes, forced participation in retirement and medical ponzi schemes, heavy gun control legislation (I could go on and on) are examples of what exactly?

I find most conservative positions very hypocritical, unrealistic and impractical.


Right, because government sponsored education, medicare, medicaid, and social security have worked out sooo well for us...bawhahahahahahaha.

FrankHerbert
1.7 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2011
Actually they have worked out extremely well. Not as well as they could have because you and your ilk are constantly trying to sabotage them to prove your petty (failed) ideological points. It's amazing they work at all despite constant conservatard sabotage ("government doesn't work! elect me and i'll prove it!") I shudder to think where we would be without them.
Moebius
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2011
Actually I'm middle of the road, I think there is something wrong with the far right and the far left. FOX is far right, CNN and the rest of the media are not far left, only the far right thinks they are but then they aren't right (bad pun).
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2011
Actually I'm middle of the road, I think there is something wrong with the far right and the far left. FOX is far right, CNN and the rest of the media are not far left, only the far right thinks they are but then they aren't right (bad pun).

Then you are far left, not in the middle.

A better question to be asked for this test is "Do you believe every human being has an inherent, unalienable right to life, liberty and property?"
Which means that no other human being or group of human beings can take those rights.
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2011
The best evidence against the "liberal media bias" I've seen recently was the NYT reporting of the Wisconsin union battle. The NYT is supposed to be THE liberal paper of record, right? You wouldn't have thought so looking at their coverage of the protests. Out of roughly 12 photos on their website, NONE of them showed the extent of the crowd. I don't think one of the photos showed more than 30-40 people. It was obvious they were downplaying the size of the protests. Also virtually all of the photos focused on college students beating drums and holding signs with vaguely communist imagery (red and black fists, "solidarity" etc.) even though they were only a fraction of the crowd. If we are to believe the "liberal media bias" myth wouldn't the NYT have overstated the number of people in the crowd or at least taken a wide angle photo of the capital to accurately reflect the size of the protest? Also wouldn't they have also tried to take pictures of the numerous union members there?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2011
So... we have an article presenting convincing scientific evidence re; the opinions we think are our own are actually indications of DEFECTS. But instead of you all reflecting on the obvious ILLUSIONS your opinions are BECAUSE of this, you instead ignore the obvious and continue to argue. Against others with the same sort of defects. As if TALKING is going to repair their brains or somehow justify the damage in your own.

You would feel the same passion for your opponents causes if your brains were damaged in the same manner as theirs, irrespective of the nature of the cause. You realize that?

The people who contrive these causes in order to manipulate you for their own Purposes, laugh at you because of this. Hahahahaha they go. 'Sheep are so gullible, they think just because there are others who disagree with them , then they must be right. That one cause is any more real or right or preferable all the time than the other. Hahahahaha'.

Muttonheads.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2011
The NYT is supposed to be THE liberal paper of record, right?

Of course it could be that they need to regain market share and the only way to do that is to limit their 'liberal' bias.

Ain't competition grand!
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2011
You can't simultaneous claim there is an isn't a liberal media bias. Conservatards have NO internal consistency.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2011
Aw forget it. Knock yourselves out. Hahahahaha.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2011
You can't simultaneous claim there is an isn't a liberal media bias. Conservatards have NO internal consistency.

It's amazing what the profit motive will do.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2011
You can't simultaneous claim there is an isn't a liberal media bias. Conservatards have NO internal consistency.

It's amazing what the profit motive will do.

Yes, and on occasion, quite frightening.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2011
Actually they have worked out extremely well. Not as well as they could have because you and your ilk are constantly trying to sabotage them to prove your petty (failed) ideological points. It's amazing they work at all despite constant conservatard sabotage ("government doesn't work! elect me and i'll prove it!") I shudder to think where we would be without them.


Yeah we "sabotage" them by throwing exorbitant obscene amounts of money at them. Go sell that bullshit to a three year old, you might have some luck there.

Sabotage....*chuckle*

Where would we be without them? We'd be just fine, western civilization would be far better off without an infestation of tapeworms eating it from the inside out believe me. We'd also be a few trillion less in debt...win win.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2011
You can't simultaneous claim there is an isn't a liberal media bias. Conservatards have NO internal consistency.


Wanting to ban cigarettes and legalize pot would be an example of...what...internal consistency?

Pffft....
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2011
You can't simultaneous claim there is an isn't a liberal media bias. Conservatards have NO internal consistency.


Wanting to ban cigarettes and legalize pot would be an example of...what...internal consistency?

Pffft....

Going the opposite direction would be just as silly, don't you agree?

On that particular topic it appears to be a construct of preference for particular altered mental states rather than a factual acceptance of one item over the other.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2011
Going the opposite direction would be just as silly, don't you agree?


Couldn't agree more, but two wrongs don't make a right and you're deflecting.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2011
Going the opposite direction would be just as silly, don't you agree?


Couldn't agree more, but two wrongs don't make a right and you're deflecting.

No, I'm agreeing with you. I think the partisan policies on substance use/legality are hypocritical on both sides. Either regulate by an objective guideline based on health risk or don't regulate.

I'd prefer the latter of the two options. I don't think the govt should be regulating what people put in their bodies.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2011
I don't think the govt should be regulating what people put in their bodies.

What? You are in full support of the FDA.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2011
I don't think the govt should be regulating what people put in their bodies.

What? You are in full support of the FDA.

The FDA determines safety risk of new medications and food stuffs. They do not regulate use of said items. If you're going to jump into the discussion, get your facts straight.
FrankHerbert
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2011
You can't simultaneous claim there is an isn't a liberal media bias. Conservatards have NO internal consistency.


Wanting to ban cigarettes and legalize pot would be an example of...what...internal consistency?

Pffft....


Where did I claim I want to ban cigarettes? People who actually think aren't nearly as predictable as lock-step conservatards.

Beautiful little strawman, but seriously don't do it again.
CHollman82
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2011
Well... So much for free will eh?


I used to be a "card carrying" communist when I was 18.

Now I think that government should pay for the courts, the cops, and the military, and that's about it.

That's about as big a rebuttal as you can get to this article, or at least your take on it.


Idiots are found at the extreme ends...
FrankHerbert
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2011
There's plenty of dullards in the middle. Don't fool yourself.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2011
I don't think the govt should be regulating what people put in their bodies.

What? You are in full support of the FDA.

The FDA determines safety risk of new medications and food stuffs. They do not regulate use of said items. If you're going to jump into the discussion, get your facts straight.

People put food and drugs into their bodies and you are 100% in support of those regulations and the FDA does regulate the use of those products.
If the FDA is so great at regulation why shouldn't it regulate alcohol, tobacco, narcotics, etc?
rynox
5 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2011
We have a generation of people who feel entitled to security from foreign threats AND low or non-existent taxes. America is coming into a generation of 'jerks' who have no concern for other people. It is an unsustainable "I got mine" mentality. What ever happened to the pragmatic middle?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2011
We have a generation of people who feel entitled to security from foreign threats AND low or non-existent taxes. America is coming into a generation of 'jerks' who have no concern for other people. It is an unsustainable "I got mine" mentality. What ever happened to the pragmatic middle?
How about this guy?
http://www2.theze...temid=50

"The very reality that each human being is required to be put in a position of servitude to a corporation or client in order to gain income to purchase the necessities of life also perpetuates extreme, needless waste..."

-How true. But it generates the needed consumption and Thruput which drives Progress and Innovation. Some day we wont need this silly apparatus I suppose... when machines can innovate for us?
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2011
Wanting to ban cigarettes and legalize pot would be an example of...what...internal consistency?
Let's at least TRY to distinguish between harm to oneself, vs. harm to others. I want to ban YOU from putting YOUR cigarette smoke into MY lungs. If you want to damage your own body, that's your business. But don't go forcing ME to inhale your poisons. Ditto for pot. If you can manage to use it safely away from those of us who DON'T want to use it, then go right ahead and knock yourself out: it's no skin off my nose. On the other hand, I don't want to find myself FORCED to inhale YOUR narcotics and carcinogens just because I need to pass through some public space you happen to occupy.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2011
If the FDA is so great at regulation why shouldn't it regulate alcohol, tobacco, narcotics, etc?
Do you want the police to serve as your primary physician too? You're just being ridiculous.

To go with Pink's point, I think anyone should be able to do anything they want within their home as long as they are not dangerous to others. I'm a smoker. If they banned smoking in public places I'd be disagreeable about it, but I understand the reasoning.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2011
You're just being ridiculous.

Me? It's SH that fully supports a regulatory state.

Govt has warning labels on alcohol and tobacco but still sells it and rakes in the taxes.
Selling poison is acceptable as long as states can profit.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2011
Lmao and if they didn't allow the sale of them you'd be crying about that. The telltale sign of a conspiracy theorist is his attempt to mold contradictory evidence to his conspiracy. Read "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" and you may snap out of your spell. Probably not though.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2011
Me? It's SH that fully supports a regulatory state.
You're the one who seems to want to collapse seperate government structures into one all powerful body. Remember two posts above when you said the FDA should do the DEA's regulation?
Govt has warning labels on alcohol and tobacco but still sells it and rakes in the taxes.
"Hey buddy, buying this item may shorten your life, are you sure you still want to buy it from me? Ok, I'll take your money, after all, it's your choice."

Selling poison is acceptable as long as states can profit.
There's consumer demand for it. Are you against or for the free market, no one can ever tell with you.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2011
Ok, I'll take your money, after all, it's your choice."

Except for FDA regulated products.

I am all for eliminating the FDA and DEA. Are you SH?

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2011
Except for FDA regulated products. I am all for eliminating the FDA and DEA. Are you SH?
Nope. I prefer to be able to trust food I buy in a grocery store. I'd also like to ensure that I'm not getting tainted blood thinners and other medications.

It's so funny how you think the government is evil and business is pure, after all it is the for profit businesses that are responsible for poisoning our foods and medicines.

Sometimes I wonder how you could be so stupid, then I recall that when you were a kid, there were no regulations against lead paint. This is why the FDA, EPA, etc are important. We need to stop letting our kids have their futures taken through posioning of the mental and physical form that you encourage.

But do keep posting. It's far easier to point at you and be able to demonstrate the results of unregulated industry, than to argue each individual point with a robber barron like yourself.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2011
What's evil is a system that rewards failure.
Govt has NO incentive to be effective and every incentive to continue to fail. FDA fails, they complain they need more money and may get it without any review of their efficiency.
What's evil is a system that rewards failure.
What's even more evil is people are lulled into complacency by USDA inspections and FDA certifications.
When USDA inspected eggs or hamburger is contaminated and kills people, who at USDA is fired or sued?
That's why many food producers are paying for their own private certifications from reputable organizations that have an incentive to be honest, profit.
"GFSI was launched in May 2000 by CIES, the Consumer Goods Forum, and an independent, global food business network in more than 150 countries, comprised of international retailers. GFSI is a retailer-driven certification program that has been strengthened by the participation of the foodservice sector."
http://www.nsf.or...s/index.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2011
Besides the consumer who buys contaminate products, who looses? The retailer and manufacturer that recall the products.
They don't trust govt inspections, but they do trust NSF.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2011
Besides the consumer who buys contaminate products, who looses?
Everyone connected to that person who bought contaminated products. Society on the whole loses.
The retailer and manufacturer that recall the products.
Only if the Government gets involved, or the cost of lawsuits is greater than the profitability of the product.

If we do as you prefer and remove regulation and government, there absolutely no reason for that company to stop poisoning people.
Govt has NO incentive to be effective
Duh, elections. If you're ineffective and terrible at your job, you are voted out of office.
and every incentive to continue to fail.
No, politicians are fired more often than private sector workers when the people actually vote. Then again, it is the Republicans goal to reduce voter registration. After all, you can only maintain a base comprised of 78 year old racists for so long.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2011
there absolutely no reason for that company to stop poisoning people.


Why would any company want to kill its customers?

But the govt is complicit in they benefit from the tax on poisonous tobacco and alcohol.

the cost of lawsuits is greater than the profitability of the product.

That's why so many companies like having govt regulations. To shield them from lawsuits.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2011
Why would any company want to kill its customers?
The same reason it does anything it may do. Profit. THere's a great thing about consumers, they just keep making more of them. Each time one dies, 2 step up and take their place, if not more.
But the govt is complicit in they benefit from the tax on poisonous tobacco and alcohol.
You do understand the purpose of a vice tax, do you not? It is used to discourage consumption. Statistics show that it works, very well in fact.
That's why so many companies like having govt regulations. To shield them from lawsuits.
If the government didn't exist there would be no theater for lawsuits. Your arguments are so poor that a 5 year old could defeat them. I wonder why we waste the time on you.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2011
Why would any company want to kill its customers?
Because more suckers ('customers') are born every minute.
the govt is complicit in they benefit from the tax on poisonous tobacco and alcohol
More complicit than the COMPANIES producing those POISONS for PROFIT?
having govt regulations. To shield them from lawsuits.
Regulations don't shield anyone from lawsuits. They do tend to decrease the likelihood of lawsuits, since they tend to force companies to behave better in the first place (i.e. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.)
Govt has NO incentive to be effective and every incentive to continue to fail.
That depends entirely on HOW any particular agency or statute is organized. If a government mandate for an agency comes with an "or else" clause -- making public servants personally, criminally liable for any breach of regulations or gross dereliction of duty -- then one would see a rather different dynamic unfold. You want repeal; I want reform.
FrankHerbert
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2011
Your arguments are so poor that a 5 year old could defeat them.


This is it right here. Conservatard arguments are so poor that to admit being wrong would be to simultaneously admit gullibility on an unforgivable scale. They are simply too emotionally invested in their failed ideology to admit being wrong.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2011
More complicit than the COMPANIES producing those POISONS for PROFIT?

I your Utopian govt controlled world, the govt allows them to make the poison AND profits from it.

You want repeal; I want reform.

What is your reform plan? Does it require more govt power and honest govt officials?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2011
I your Utopian govt controlled world, the govt allows them to make the poison AND profits from it.
Nope. Those who knowingly manufacture poisons without disclosing the debilitating effects would be imprisoned. Similar to how the Chinese handled the people complicit in the melamine baby formula ordeal, except the chinese executed them. I'm not sold on capital punishment being the best method to enforce any regulation. I'd prefer to see them stripped of all their assets and imprisoned.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2011
Those who knowingly manufacture poisons without disclosing the debilitating effects would be imprisoned.

And you see no problem with the govt profiting from the sales and sanction of those poisons?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2011
Those who knowingly manufacture poisons without disclosing the debilitating effects would be imprisoned.

And you see no problem with the govt profiting from the sales and sanction of those poisons?
Still indulging your amygdala I see. Why dont you give it a rest and go play some frisbee?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2011
Those who knowingly manufacture poisons without disclosing the debilitating effects would be imprisoned.

And you see no problem with the govt profiting from the sales and sanction of those poisons?

If the side effects, rammifications, and potentials are adequately and accurately expressed, I have no problem with people doing what they see fit within the confines of their own home. That is individual liberty and freedom. Without complete disclosure you can never be free. With willful or enforced ignorance, as you prefer, you are not free, and will always be subject to the machinations of others.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2011
So SH is it your position then that the FDA's job should merely be vetting risk vs. benefit of drugs and then staying the hell out of people's way?

Should Vioxx still be allowed to be sold? As I understand your position it can't be anything other than an unqualified yes...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2011
There may therapeutic pharmaceuticals that may cure a small number of people but the FDA won't approve of its use.
According to SH people who want to experiment on themselves should not be stopped by the FDA.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2011
There may therapeutic pharmaceuticals that may cure a small number of people but the FDA won't approve of its use.
No, the FDA won't approve their use for prescription. A doctor cannot give them to you as a treatment.

According to SH people who want to experiment on themselves should not be stopped by the FDA.
And they're not. If you can synthesize a chemical compound that is not allowed for prescription by the FDA, there are no laws to prevent you from doing so according to the FDA.

Now in the case of substances like LSD and Meth, there are laws from the DEA or the local authority that prohibit use.
So SH is it your position then that the FDA's job should merely be vetting risk vs. benefit of drugs and then staying the hell out of people's way?
Yes. That's exactly my stance. THe problem with Vioxx is that Merck knew the risks and never informed anyone of them until they were called on it.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2011
I your Utopian govt controlled world, the govt allows them to make the poison AND profits from it.
And you want to disallow it? Bring back Prohibition, is that it?
What is your reform plan?
I already mentioned it, in part:

"If a government mandate for an agency comes with an "or else" clause -- making public servants personally, criminally liable for any breach of regulations or gross dereliction of duty -- then one would see a rather different dynamic unfold."

All laws that make government officials and/or government contractors immune from prosecution and/or criminal or civil liability for malfeasance or misfeasance, must be eliminated. Complementary government agencies responsible for enforcement of various laws and regulations must be set up in an adversarial manner (ala "checks and balances"), to mutually police each other. Employees must be personally rewarded and incentivized toward discovery of non-compliance or any violations.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2011
Yes. That's exactly my stance. THe problem with Vioxx is that Merck knew the risks and never informed anyone of them until they were called on it.


Agreed.

More news stories

Man among first in US to get 'bionic eye' (Update)

A degenerative eye disease slowly robbed Roger Pontz of his vision. Diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa as a teenager, Pontz has been almost completely blind for years. Now, thanks to a high-tech procedure ...