My prediction for this thread: equivocations, equivocations and more equivocations...

Especially these two words: "moral" and "objective."

edit:

Yup, in the first reply already:

If evolution is the case, then it's really hard to see how there can be objective morality, in the realist sense. We're moral creatures because that's the best strategy for us to pass our genes on, but the exact morality can vary depending on what works in any given time or culture. — Marchesk

Go get yourself a beer lad -- I donated some some money via pay pal -- this has probably been the most fruitless thread I have ever seen.

The epistemological/intellectual aspect of conservatism, a free market for ideas, because humans are fundamentally limited and fallible.

lazy copy-paste:

"They are the different visions of human nature that underlie left-wing and right-wing ideologies. The distinction comes from the economist Thomas Sowell in his wonderful book "A Conflict of Visions." According to the Tragic Vision, humans are inherently limited in virtue, wisdom, and knowledge, and social arrangements must acknowledge those limits. According to the Utopian vision, these limits are “products” of our social arrangements, and we should strive to overcome them in a better society of the future. Out of this distinction come many right-left contrasts that would otherwise have no common denominator.

Rightists tend to like tradition (because human nature does not change), small government (because no leader is wise enough to plan society), a strong police and military (because people will always be tempted by crime and conquest), and free markets (because they convert individual selfishness into collective wealth). Leftists believe that these positions are defeatist and cynical, because if we change parenting, education, the media, and social expectations, people could become wiser, nicer, and more peaceable and generous." (Pinker 2002)

I linked this particular video because he addresses the crux your post in a clever way.

----

Here is a more serious post.

Summary and Conclusions:

• Speaker disinvitation attempts from 2000 to 2016 were most likely to come from the left of the speaker.
• These disinvitation attempts from the left occurred most often for controversies over racial issues, views on sexual orientation, and views on Islam.
• Speaker disinvitations due to issues related to abortion almost exclusively came from the right of the speaker, at religious institutions.
• Speaker disinvitations due to views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict occurred almost equally from the left of the speaker and from the right of the speaker.
• With the exception of 2006, the first decade of the new millennia saw a roughly equal number of disinvitation attempts from the left and right of the speaker. Beginning in 2010 an uptick in disinvitation attempts from the left of the speaker has occurred.
• Disinvitation attempts from the right of the speaker have a higher success rate.
• When disinvitation attempts are unsuccessful, moderate and substantial event disruptions are almost exclusively from the left of the speaker.

So, both political movements are guilty of this, but the Left has been more guilty of this, especially of late.

------

edit:

Our favourite nob is right again...

you can

Having someone who is more experienced in life and emotions calms me. — Question

What about becoming that yourself?

What puzzles me is why the left can't appreciate that the right felt just as strongly that Obama posed a threat to America as the left now feels Trump poses. — Hanover

Is that really puzzling? We are talking about a group of people with a very limited and ignorant view of the world.

Yeah, you're right, I am not really keeping up with the posts and with the hopping in-and-out of the thread, I tend to miss the context of some conversations.

Okay, if we are talking about 1k expense as a student, then we agree.

I did work in addition to school, but not a lot -- it was still tough.

My most significant point really is that you (and me and everyone) be cautious about adopting a personal philosophy that allows for idleness. In truth, such philosophies are nothing more than rationalizations for poor conduct. — Hanover

Yeah, one of the reasons I left Buddhism as a serious philosophical conduct. I am fully aware that that is not the intention of Buddhism, nor the school of thought -- before I get accused of straw man -- but it is the unintentional consequence of it, the great apathetic state of indifference. Suffering is often a good stimulation to drive oneself to a better state of life. If you suffer, there is probably something wrong with the condition of your life, you should change something and medication is probably not the panacea -- nor philosophy for that matter.

There are medical exceptions, but I have a hard time believing that everybody has a medical ailment. (3...2...1... Wosret replying.....)

edit: there are only two dispositions you need to focus on in life, ambition and discipline. The rest will naturally follow.

Let's run some rough numbers.

Germany ranks 32 (USA is 18th) on the cost of living index and has an average living expenses of 716 Euro's per month in Berlin -- Germany has an average income before tax of 3716 Euro's, while minimum wage gives you monthly 1473 Euro's before tax.

Leaving out government subsidies etcetera.

Germany is cheap blud. I ain't smoking nuffin'.

edit: 1000 euro's per month is still cheap.

Immigration process would be tough for me...



http://online.seterra.com/en

USA has a higher HDI than Canada. The index is (partly) based on the capability principle by Amartya Sen, that gives so many leftist an erection around here.

Positive liberty is a leftist joke.

Anyway, Thorongil claimed it is expensive to live in Germany, which is factually inaccurate, Germany is quite cheap. Also, "free" college does not mean an easy entry, they have got -- like many other European nations -- limited and highly regulated enrolment. Also, the German work-ethic is tough and disciplined.

But to keep this thread constructive, the purpose of a college degree is to get a job, keep that in mind, before enrolling. Take the opportunity cost of college into account as well, it is a-four-year loss of income and experience.

There are some really attractive vacancies regarding IT or programming that you could enrol without prior experience or qualifications, working on ERP software etcetera. You often get a free half-year course, paid by the corporate, and then a contract to get employed. The earnings are not bad as well -- well above the minimum wage -- you should consider it. It is in high demand, the job prospects are looking good and stable in the future.

I myself may consider to move to the USA in the future -- I have never been there.

edit: or just listen to Bittercrank, Hanover or Murray.

I have low self-esteem — Question

Society imposed some fictitious rule on people that "man" ought move ought from "mother". I suspect this has to do with capitalism, individualism, and consumerism, along with a plethora of unrestricted wants and desires from the daughter or son spewing out. — Question

Leftists are quite creative at blaming all their insecurities on Capitalism.

Anyway, listen to Hanover or Charles Murray:


edit:

A bit from his book:

"If you haven’t left home already, it’s time to jump out of the nest, and these days you can’t count on parents to do the right thing and push you out. So jump even if they say you don’t have to. You’ll figure out how to fly before you hit the ground—not well, maybe, but you’ll be flying.
Don’t argue that you can’t find a job that pays enough to support yourself. You can. You just can’t find a job that will support you in the style to which you have been accustomed. So accustom yourself to a new style. Learn to get by on little—prove to yourself how resourceful you can be. Move out. No matter what.
And don’t let your parents support you. It’s okay if Mom or Dad gives you a loan so that you can make the required deposit when you rent an apartment. It’s okay for them to give you birthday and Christmas checks that you and they both realize are not for buying yourself a present but to help keep you afloat. These are advantages that your contemporaries from less affluent families don’t have, and they will retard your transition to full independence to some degree. But, at the least, you need to be paying your own rent, buying your own food, taking care of your own laundry—in a hundred ways, assuming responsibility for yourself. Many of you have parents who, for the most loving reasons, are willing to prolong your adolescence if you let them. Don’t let them."

(...)

"A common and depressing assumption on the part of many college students is that they must stay on the academic rails until they are professionally established—go directly to grad school from college and directly from grad school to a job, as if there were some big rush and even a few years lost would put them catastrophically behind everyone else.
Nonsense. Suppose you intend to retire at sixty-five. If you don’t start your career until you’re thirty, that still gives you thirty-five years to make it professionally. If you can’t make it in thirty-five years, you weren’t going to make it in forty or forty-five.
You probably won’t really have to wait until you’re thirty to begin your vocation. With any luck, you will have identified something you really want to do before then. But in general, think of your twenties as a time for doing the things that you won’t be able to do when you have a spouse and children. There is only the stipulation from the previous tip: You have to support yourself. An essential part of the experience is being on your own.
If you are as ambitious as I was, the real barrier to treating your twenties that way is that you want to be as successful as possible as young as possible. Let me try to persuade you to rethink that."

I believe that the law should be laissez faire — Agustino

Good, then we are done here.

Damn, that political compass test is ridiculously biased. — darthbarracuda

How?

I just did that test because csalisbury commented that the original test was "terribly designed." I answered the questions and tried not to over-think the questions I got.

My guess is that I am quite libertarian (i.e. indifferent) to personal choices that does not infringe on human rights. I think that most of the questions regarding fairness was answered indifferently by me, because I compartmentalise my negative emotional response from a moral one. If I would not have done that, the results would probably be less odd.

For a deeper introspection, I should look back at the questions one by one, but my overall impression of the test is quite negative -- the questions were really off.

I honestly don't know. I found the questions a bit weird. I answered neutral with cases like whether it is morally "OK" or "not OK" if Betty kisses two lads on a night out, who cares? If she wants to get shafted by 15 blokes on an adventurous night, laissez faire, though I would not consider her marriage material.

Furthermore, I had no problems with John hiring the more attractive one rather than what the author deemed as the more competent one. If it is his business -- that is how I interpreted the context of the question -- it is up to him what he prefers.

I forgot most of the questions.

That's so wrong. — Sapientia

That is your opinion blud.

I am not sure whether I have cited this here before, but here it goes:

"They are the different visions of human nature that underlie left-wing and right-wing ideologies. The distinction comes from the economist Thomas Sowell in his wonderful book "A Conflict of Visions." According to the Tragic Vision, humans are inherently limited in virtue, wisdom, and knowledge, and social arrangements must acknowledge those limits. According to the Utopian vision, these limits are “products” of our social arrangements, and we should strive to overcome them in a better society of the future. Out of this distinction come many right-left contrasts that would otherwise have no common denominator. Rightists tend to like tradition (because human nature does not change), small government (because no leader is wise enough to plan society), a strong police and military (because people will always be tempted by crime and conquest), and free markets (because they convert individual selfishness into collective wealth). Leftists believe that these positions are defeatist and cynical, because if we change parenting, education, the media, and social expectations, people could become wiser, nicer, and more peaceable and generous." (Pinker)

The rest is on the old site that I can't reach.

Leftist's view is utopian, hence all the ideological revolutionary/revolting push comes from the left. Children tend to be leftists, due to lack of life experience and abundance of naive world views.

edit: The reason Christians tend to be conservatives, is because they share the tragic vision of human nature --> "the fallen human creature."

Conservatism as popularised by Burke, et al. has no fixed view on policy or dogmatism, but it is rather a political strategy to cope with human frailties. Traditionally, they dislike the state of nature (Rousseau) and ideological revolutions (Jacobinism) -- the appeal to nature has always been left wing, see Rousseau:

"People in their natural state are basically good. But this natural innocence,however, is corrupted by the evils of society."

Marketing people make use of this leftist phenomenon by labelling their products: "natural pureness." It is the leftist version of sanctity and purity that Haidt refers to.

Haidt continues: "Political views are multifaceted, but a single liberal– conservative (or left–right) continuum is a useful approximation that has predictive validity for voting behavior and opinions on a wide range of issues (Jost, 2006). In terms of political philosophy, the essential element of all forms of liberalism is individual liberty (Gutmann, 2001). Liberals have historically taken an optimistic view of human nature and of human perfectibility; they hold what Sowell (2002) calls an “unconstrained vision” in which people should be left as free as possible to pursue their own courses of personal development. Conservatism, in contrast, is best under- stood as a “positional ideology,” a reaction to the challenges to authority and institutions that are so often mounted by liberals (Muller, 1997). Conservatives have traditionally taken a more pessimistic view of human nature, believing that people are inherently selfish and imperfectible. They therefore hold what Sowell called a “constrained vision” in which people need the constraints of authority, institutions, and traditions to live civilly with each other."

This phenomenon is even more apparent in Europe.

Haidt says: "But if we turn down the disgust a few notches, we see vast difference between left and right over the use of concepts such as sanctity and purity. American conservatives are more likely to talk about the “ sanctity of life ” and the “ sanctity of marriage. ” Conservatives — particularly religious conservatives — are more likely to view the body as a temple, housing a soul within, rather than as a machine to be optimized, or as a playground to be used for fun.
(...)
On the left, however, the virtue of chastity is usually dismissed as outdated and sexist.
(...)
The Sanctity foundation is used most heavily by the religious right, but it is also used on the spiritual left. You can see the foundation’s original impurity avoidance function in New Age grocery stores, where you'll find a variety of products that promise to cleanse you of “ toxins. ” And you’ll find the Sanctity foundation underlying some of the moral passions of the environmental movement. Many environmentalists revile industrialism, capitalism, and automobiles not just for the physical pollution they create but also for a more symbolic kind of pollution — a degradation of nature, and of humanity’s original nature, before it was corrupted by industrial capitalism."

So leftist do care about purity, but this is expressed in different areas than right wingers, e.g. leftist are viled by the sight of this:



edit:

They also have shifted the meaning of the word "natural" to the equivalence of "good," hence appealing to nature. 'Nature in its pure form is good and human institutions ruin it.'

This reveals their deep rooted world view on nature, which is contrasted by conservatives, who are much more wary of nature and its dark aspects.

Ultimately, it depends on your personality (i.e. genetics). Haidt came with his moral foundations test, here are my results:



You can see that I tend to be closer to conservatives than liberals [1], regarding the foundations of my morality.

It reveals (to a certain extend) how you think and what personality you have.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Liberals meaning progressives, leftist in this case, not liberalism in the classical sense.

That is just one point of divergence mate. The test asks 100 and averages it.

I am sure many of you have trouble interpreting the meaning of your result. This may help you with that inquiry:

Meaning, you lean more libertarian than you care to explicitly admit.

I think the test knows you better than you know yourself.

http://spekr.org/

I feel that this is ultimately the most accurate one. The other tests are quite shoddy.

They are just too difficult to understand — unenlightened

◔_◔ Yeah, that must be it...

According to Wikipedia he is also considered a philosopher, so I will go with that.

"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal." -- Hayek.

"What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves." -- Hayek

"If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialist." -- Hayek

Since men also dominate the lower end of the spectrum, most reckless idiots are therefore men. The Darwin Award -- a symbolic post hoc award that commemorates individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives, the winners eliminate themselves in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species' chances of long-term survival -- is dominated by men:

Attractiveness and culturally appropriateness do not seem to be relevant to me. I personally do not care about either.

To me, it is about the telos of a particular job, regardless of gender. Just do the job well. I do not care whether you have a Y chromosome or not, but do not lower the bar to satisfy some kind of socialist ideal where all jobs are perfectly balanced by gender through affirmative action. Most fire-fighters are men because men are physically and mentally more competent. Are there exceptions? Sure, we call them lesbians.

Another exception: I will never hire a male nanny to look after my children. I have a deep suspicion of male nannies, and I hold the right to be sexist in this regard.

No, but I said "sorry" so all is fine.

What are you on about? I think you miss the point, but I would first like to hear some clarifications before I respond fully. I do not want to base my reply on a misunderstanding.

I argue both. Going by the evidence I cited, women are less willing to make the necessary sacrifices and are naturally less capable.

So did I, sorry.

The same thing, only less of it. Better? — Bitter Crank

I thought your previous post was fine. Writing is all about clarity and purpose. Length is unimportant.

Anyway, to the crux of your post. What people (mostly leftists) need to realise is that life is a not a zero-sum game. All socialists arguments are rooted in some kind of zero-sum thinking, but one of the first thing they teach you in economic classes is that economics is not a zero-sum game.

Men's successes do not go at the cost of women.

It is evidently the case that the gender gap in higher education increases if the financial aspects becomes less important. For, example, there are proportionally more women in engineering in India or in other poorer countries than in Norway, because the women in Norway worry less about money, and are therefore more inclined to choose what they truly enjoy instead of planning a career.

Women and men make different choices, and there is strong evidence that discrimination plays little to no role.

Yeah that must be it...

lies! This is simply homophobic!

Men should be less ambitious and successful, so that we can become more equal.

I am actually baffled by your insightful post. I often don't read them.

Anyway, regarding your comment, there is extremely strong inverse-correlation between the level of income/education and fertility rate, which is exemplified with women due to pregnancies.

I read somewhere that the most dominant factor for this phenomenon is the idea of opportunity cost. Women often complain that they are getting "punished" for having to choose between a stable family or a successful career. What you stated is echoed by Murray's essay.

One obvious policy is to compensate those career women through government handouts. This is highly controversial, since this will be a de facto wealth distribution from the poor to the rich, heavily increasing inequality.

Opportunity cost is a fundamental economic principle, an objective fact of life, not the fault of any institution. Many women can't fathom that, which is a shame but not a surprise. Only one woman got a Nobel prize in economics so far, compared to 73 men.

As a famous economist once said: 'there are no solutions, only trade-offs'.