Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Green Jobs | Main | Sunday Morning Open Thread »

February 27, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e20120a8dd97d9970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Catnip For Libs:

Comments

Mooney, Plait, Myers; three peas in a pod.

PZ Myers is a putz, too. He banned me after three days and comment string over a mille.
=================

I'll see your Cooper and raise you a Clemons.

All three of them snap twigs in mad earnest whenever a breath of religion disturbs their nares.
==========================

Thomas Collins

Obama already informed us of this fact. It's the bitter clingers who have the low IQs.

If someone wants to apply social science survey research techniques to these kinds of questions, the more interesting study would be to find what correlates with individuals who believe the God/no God question is important. For example, Bertrand Russell and James Schall might be classified on different ends of a belief line, but may be close on a "belief/non belief is not important/important" continuum.

Al Asad

IQ measurement, especially within that margin of error thing, is not very instructive.

It would be better to measure occupation within the conservative mindset.

I'm betting the upper-education scale is populated with engineers, bean-counters and bankers. Those sclerotic nerve pathways can be bothersome when new ideas emerge within the social dynamic. Inflexibility of thought pattern is harder to measure but could explain some of the IQ gap for conservatives.

In the Land of Myopia, the blind man is King.

glasater

The question I have is--how many IP addresses can you change to cleo?

Al Asad

Al Asad is Arabic for 'The Lion' or literally, 'The Leo', so go fish.

joe cioffi

Given your example i would suggest the liberals will propose to take iq points from everyone else in order to make us all even!

Gmax

TM going where others fear to tread. The Bell Curve triggered more than denunciations, there was hate mail and death threats. Be prepare boyscout.

anduril

I saw a link to this yesterday. I didn't click on it.

Gmax

Seriously? Some guy named Kwanzaa did a study on correlation to IQ and being a libtard? Some village is missing their one and only...

Gmax

high-IQ men were also more likely to be sexually exclusive than lower IQ men,


Well to my untrained eye this translates as :

Geeks are likely to be monosexual. That indeed is a very exclusive club of one, but not what you inferred...

Extraneus

Would this be a good time to request the liberal messiah's SAT and LSAT scores again? I think it would be scientifically interesting to know just how intelligent their hero is, since up until now it's been a blind test.

Gmax

"Wanker" to use the British colloquial.

bgates

Some guy named Kwanzaa did a study

Satoshi Kanazawa.

because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere

-in the rainbow, the blue sky, the sun and moon, the abundance of the earth, in love - Oh, the paranoia!

matt

anyone who posits that equality of outcome is the ultimate goal of a polity, despite any and all tests administered, has the IQ of an amoeba.This pretty well covers the liberal elite.

Gmax

Shutupski Kwanzaa that is what I said.

Anyone who has ever been scuba diving and peered over the edge of underwater cliff down into the murky nothingness and looked left and right and for as far as you could see was this enormousness, and came away not thinking they had looked into the face of the deity is not someone I want to spend time with.

Tom Bowler

Just browse the comments on a liberal blog. You can't help but be astonished at the intellectual power on display. Catchy title. too: "Why We're Better."

I particularly like this one:

One of the primary differences between liberal and conservative is that liberals see how leveling the societal and economic playing field benefits everyone, whereas conservatives want to maintain class and financial hierarchies, for some reason. All other political beliefs flow from that.

As my dear departed mother used to say, "Deep down, they're really very shallow."

Jim

Social science is a pseudo science. Or, more likely science fiction. Kind of like global warming science. This might be a report based on Kanazawa's "hockey stick." Apparently, he was able to "hide the decline."

Anecdotally, you can look at biden and obama and know that liberals are idiots.

Clarice

anyone who posits that equality of outcome is the ultimate goal of a polity" is someone who hasn't much, expects not to have much and covets his neighbor's ass.

Charlie (Colorado)

TM going where others fear to tread. The Bell Curve triggered more than denunciations, there was hate mail and death threats. Be prepare boyscout.

You mean the trolls might boycott us?

Oh, please don't throw me in that briar patch, Bre'r Fox!

Gmax

anyone who posits


Or ala Stalin sits in judgement of all he sees. In which case forget that some are just more equal than others...

qrstuv

"...whereas conservatives want to maintain class and financial hierarchies, for some reason. "

For all their vaunted intellect, liberals are just incapable of accurately representing conservative thought.

And they don't even know it.

And they don't see what it says about them that they cannot accurately represent conservatism (I'm not talking about *agreement*--just accuracy).

boris

"liberals see how leveling the societal and economic playing field benefits everyone"

The phrase "leveling the playing field" seems to mean something different for liberals. One would think it should mean all players get equal opporutinty where "level" refers to same for everyone ... rather than handicapping or adjusting the level for different groups so they get equal outcomes, scores, or chances to win ... regardless of differences in investment of effort, practice, or skill.

IOW the "liberal playing field" is actually a kindergarden playground.

bunkerbuster

I'm betting this study won't get near the media exposure those showing conservatives are "happier" and "more generous" did a while back. Years later those still feature regularly as "go to" ripostes for blog-comment conservatives.

I've noticed on conservative blogs that number one theme is "we're so much smarter and more moral than those idiotic, dishonest liberals.''

The second most popular theme is: "it's horribly arrogant that liberals go around thinking they're smarter and more moral than conservatives.''

daddy

Copernicus---Believer
Brahe----Believer
Kepler-----Believer
Galileo-----Believer
Newton-----Believer
Einstein---Believer

Obviously low IQ's folks. Too bad we didn't have any really smart guys available to figure out the Universe.

boris

There you go ... conservatives are ...

H Y P O C R I T S !

Like that's not a stereotype.

Andrew_M_Garland

I wonder if one of the questions on the IQ test was: "Are you a liberal?"

YES: 5 pts, NO: 0 pts

That could explain things.

Army of Davids

I'm really looking forward to watching all those highly intelligent liberals fight in the House over the public option and taxpayer funded abortion.

The callous children can't get out of their own way.

bunkerbuster

I wonder how conservatives rank on humility, relative to liberals...

daddy

Well, not to worry.

">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect"> The Flynn Effect tells us that the average IQ in a population goes up 3 points per decade, so obviously soon we'll all be as smart as Obama and the Left are now, and the scales will fall from our eyes and we'll understand why destroying the finest health care system in the world while simultaneously destroying the economy is brilliant, and we'll all be clamoring to bring back Air-America at Taxpayer expense.

I'm on my way out now to buy some arugula to help the process along, but the roads are really icy what with all our Global Warming, but not to worry, 'cause if I get rear-ended in an accident I've got Liability Insurance, and hopefully a "Corpsemen" will be nearby to help me out. Geez, I'm getting you know brillianter already.

Porchlight

I wonder how conservatives rank on humility, relative to liberals...

I don't.

squeakie

"There is a fine line between genius and madness because they share the same genes, scientists have found."
By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Published: 6:35AM BST 30 Sep 2009

PD

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs.

I'm sure I'm too dumb to understand his brilliant study and that my time is better spent skipping it and doing something else.

Now where were those socks that needed sorting?

Extraneus

I thought the innate intellectual superiority of liberals was front and center at the Blair House meeting Thursday.

PD

"The Sixth Sense" is showing on WGN tonight at 10:30 Central. You'll remember this as the movie with the classic line, "I see dead people's dentures."

E. Nigma

The London School of Economics, while surely possessing intelligent faculty, has been a brain trust of socialist economic theory since at least WWII, and probably before that. The leading Brahmins of India (the Nehru family, among others), obtained parts of their education their. Which helps explain the economic plight of India for years after independence.
The research would be interesting to look at, but to this simple soul, it sounds like a forgone conclusion in search of causes. This type of backward reasoning is pretty typical in some of the weaker social sciences.

In the past, people wanted to prove their "virtue", or moral qualities to gain political power. This was sometimes a chimera, as many "moral" people were anything but. The new virtue, is, of course, IQ (not withstanding the trashing of the book, "The Bell Curve"), especially when it vindicates the viewpoint of progressive thinkers. Whatever progressive thinkers are.

MarkJ

Gee, as I recall, quite a few smart atheists in Germany also bought into National Socialism and eagerly supported the aims of the Third Reich.

Jane

I thought the innate intellectual superiority of liberals was front and center at the Blair House meeting Thursday.

So intellect is now measured anecdotes rather than facts? Now I get it.

BTW just to illustrate their superior liberal intellect, I happened on to firedoglake during the summit, and the blogger was so excited about those fabulous liberal anecdotes she could barely contain herself. Who needs facts?

PD

Jane, exactly right. It's always prudent to craft public policy that affects all of us based on the most extreme outlying cases.

PD

When all is said and done, what it comes down to is this:

You simply cannot win the gold in men's curling with pants like that.

Extraneus

It isn't easy to memorize and recite anecdotes in the face of withering factual attacks, much less make them up extemporaneously. If it was, everyone would do it.

Ignatz

--I'm betting this study won't get near the media exposure those showing conservatives are "happier" and "more generous" did a while back.--

But we are happier and more generous.
It's easily measured by how much more often we donate our kidneys to our cirrhotic liberal neighbors who are way smarter than us.

matt

my response to Kanazawa. LUN

Janet

My experience is that liberals are constantly frustrated and irritated because nobody will do what they want. Their focus is always on what others "should" be doing. They think up idea after great idea, and they want the rest of us to just DO IT. My Northern Virginia neighborhood is full of liberal busybodies.
The funny thing is that the MSM paints Christians as the group one needs to fear because they will force everyone to live a certain way....but it is the liberals that do it. The phrase "mind your own business" comes to mind a lot.

RogerCfromSD

This "study" merely shows just how in desperate need of self-esteem Liberals really are.

I'll put my intellect up against any liberal's any day.

hit and run

PD:
You simply cannot win the gold in men's curling with pants

I agree!

What?

Oh......

You mean Olympic curling and are referring to some team's actual wardrobe.

I,on the other hand,was thinking of the 12 oz curls event and my current lack of wardrobe.

I thought some drunk was just waving his pants around.

Oh, that Checkered Flag.
===============

Seems you were right; only Mossad could be that clever.

Oh, my, anduril; two of the latest Dubai suspects left there by ship to go to Iran.
====================

bunkerbuster

I do think American conservatives get a bad rap for being stupid. I know plenty of brilliant conservatives (personally and by reputation) and plenty of moronic liberals, so the idea that one side of the ideological spectrum has all the brains just doesn't wash.

Conservatives got the reputation for stupidity because ``low-information'' conservatives tend to be very loud in the public sphere and have created a cottage industry of endless self-pity, inflamed paranoia, wingnut welfare, etc. By contrast, smart conservatives tend to shy away from the public sphere, eschewing politics and intellectualizing for making money, taking care of their family and accumulating real power.

The opposite holds for liberals. The smartest liberals tend to be among the loudest ones. Their voices are more likely to be front and center in the public sphere. So ''low-information'' liberals tend to get pushed out of the public sphere by the smarter ones. Also, uninformed liberals are more likely to take a "mellow" attitude toward those who disagree with them politically, so are less likely get loud in public than their conservative counterparts are. They tend to seek mellowness and harmony a little more.

Straight from the horse's governing principle.

I am now as fully informed about uninformed liberals as it is possible to be.
=============================

bgates

The smartest liberals tend to be among the loudest ones.

I was afraid of that.

narciso

The problem lies where the capstones of modern intellectualism lie, matt delved into some of this, Darwin, introduced randomness into the biological sciences, Marz undermined economic relations, Freud, challenged the basis for morality. The other philosophers like Kierkegaard and later Sartre, effectively painted life as meaningless, Nietsche proclaim"God is Dead" not in triumph, but in sorrow, he saw the bloodshed such a transition would bring. If life is indeed meaningless, what is the point of being good, liberals haven't yet
come up with a good answer for that

Mike O'Malley

Kanazawa says:

"Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.

"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said."

.


This guy comes across as an idiot. Current theory is far far more sophisticated:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard


Jane

Conservatives got the reputation for stupidity

Only among idiots. I guess bunky likes to hang out with the dumb guys.

PD I'll take Norway's pants of the US pajamas. What the hell is that?

bunkerbuster

I don't know what the "current theory" is, but I do think Kanazawa is unnecessarily inflammatory in presenting of a widely understood phenomenon.

Religion indeed contributes to survival by creating a framework for accessing sub-conscious knowledge. In some ways, the sub-conscious brain is far more powerful tool -- more rational and more capable of memorizing raw data -- than our conscious mind.

But we can only directly access our subconscious through the experience of intuition. And without some belief in the supernatural, it's much more difficult to accept intuition as anything other than irrational imaginings.

Prayer, meditation and, even, faith in the hereafter have offered socially acceptable avenues for individuals to escape domination by the conscious mind and let their sub-conscious contribute more to their understanding and analysis of day to day life.

Liberty Jane

I was put into a gifted program in the very early 1980s, in public school.

The gifted teacher thought her job was to run extensive psychological tests on us (uncomfortable!) and have us sit around and talk about how good nuclear freeze would be.

It was all indoctrination, all the time. The teacher insisted we call her "Ms." in a conservative school where all of the other female teachers were "Miss" or "Mrs".

narciso

If he was so smart, he wouldn't have put in such a tactless way.

bunkerbuster

``If life is indeed meaningless, what is the point of being good.''

I'm "good" out of empathy. I don't screw my friend's girlfriend, because I wouldn't want him to screw mine.

That formula underlies all morality.

Very simple and has nothing whatsoever to do with hell or heaven or God.

bunkerbuster

Liberty Jane: must have been nice to have at least one liberal in a "conservative school," or would you have preferred to have all conservatives?

Jim Ryan

If you subscribed to a political philosophy that was composed only of one or two shallow and baseless dogmas and found yourself living in a society of people who embraced a rich tradition of political beliefs and values replete with ancient, richly detailed and robustly argued grounds, you would find yourself with a choice: abandon your beliefs or attempt to explain away the beliefs of others as based on economic forces, stupidity or poor character. For you would have no hope of arguing your case.

Hence the spectacle of liberals gleefully celebrating pseudo-scientific studies purporting to demonstrate their superior IQ.

Hence the frequent squawking about Cheney and Bush as evil.

Hence the habitual reprise of the Marxist refrain that conservative values persist merely because they serve the interests of the wealthy.

PD

I'm "good" out of empathy. I don't screw my friend's girlfriend, because I wouldn't want him to screw mine.

And what if he (or his girlfriend) does screw your girlfriend?

Janet

The concept of good can't even be defined outside of an ultimate truth, or standard.

If there is no God...then anything goes. Good or bad, right or wrong,...even smart or dumb is all up to whatever each individual thinks. If you think I'm wrong...well who cares, who can say since there is no absolute truth.

bunkerbuster
    ``And what if he (or his girlfriend) does screw your girlfriend?''

Then I'd have no

    moral
problem with screwing his, given the evidence that neither my girlfriend (assuming it was not rape) nor my friend believe in monogamy.(We can of course imagine a scenario in which both parties were apologetic, considered it an accident, ie recognized the moral problem etc. in which case I would have a moral problem sleeping with my friend's girlfriend.) Like I said, it's simple and requires no unicorns, holy spirits or crucifixions

Janet: I'd flip that around. If God sets the standard, then man can do anything, as long as he convinces himself that God says it's ok. From the Inquisition to the Holocaust to 9/11, we can see where that leads.
And why do we need God to assume "absolute truth" exists? Truth is a rational construct, not a supernatural one. We only need God when we want something other than truth as the measure.

And have it all figgered out.

Some men are everlasting fools.
===================

JM Hanes

bunkerbuster:

"Then I'd have no moral problem with screwing his"

You might want to rethink that, because you've essentially just said you have no moral code of your own. If a guy screws your girlfriend, you lower your standards accordingly.

JM Hanes

bunkerbuster:

I recommend avoiding the "we."

Melinda Romanoff

I'm so pleased bb is here to teach us all of the errors of our ways. We should act like "everyone else".

And it would be so much easier for bb if we just thought like "everyone else".

You are so civilized in your morals because "I don't screw my friend's girlfriend, because I wouldn't want him to screw mine.

That formula underlies all morality.".

The fear of immediate death by tribe is the root of all morality.

Has your life always been a "catered event"?

When was the last time someone changed your diapers? I think you're a bit due...

PD

Answer: You bring your girlfriend before the Shari'a court, where they declare HER guilty and execute her.

Since we're talking moral universals and all.

JM Hanes

Jim:

"Social science is a pseudo science"

Evolutionary psychology is even worse. It's a euphemism for a bunch of guys sitting around getting paid to speculate about the good old cavemen days. Almost anybody here could make up more plausible shit than they do.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but the subjects of almost all these liberal/conservative studies are students, otherwise known as callow youths.

Melinda Romanoff

Oooh, somebody smacked the hornets nest!

G'night all.

(Leave some pieces....)

sbw

Both sides argue if there are angels who can dance on the head of a pin.

Janet

man can do anything, as long as he convinces himself that God says it's ok

Your statement supports MY contention.
Mankind doesn't get to make up who God is. That mankind has and does make up gods to justify their actions is true though.
I was talking about God...I AM...Jehovah.

daddy

Recently came upon this old English Prayer:

"God help in my search for truth, and protect me from those who believe they have found it."

Clarice

I wish I'd thought of majoring in evolutionary psychology .it seems even easier than climate studies or law.

Ignatz

--I'm "good" out of empathy. I don't screw my friend's girlfriend, because I wouldn't want him to screw mine.--

Good grief. There seem to be a whole bunch of words which don't mean what you think they mean.

Fresh Air

Oh cripes! Are you telling me C(L)eo/Al Assad/Bunkybuster got himself out of his restraints again?

Will someone please tie Cleo back into the bed and feed him a cup of strawberry Jello? We mustn't take our medication on any empty stomach. Thank you!

ED-209

@Daddy:

Throw Stephen Hawking on your list there.

Kathy Kattenburg

Nando = "Big Tent Democrat."
And no, I *didn't* look it up.

Best wishes,

Another smart liberal

bunkerbuster

JM Hanes writes: ''you've essentially just said you have no moral code of your own. If a guy screws your girlfriend, you lower your standards accordingly.''

I think you misunderstood, JM. My moral code or "standard" permits having sex with someone other than my girlfriend under certain circumstances, so when those circumstances present themselves, I'm not changing my morals, I'm fulfilling them.

Sexual fidelity, in my view, is a matter of honesty, not a supernatural commandment from God.

I would not betray my friend or my girlfriend by having sex outside their trust. Nor would I, for example, set up a joint bank account with another woman, if that would violate any agreement with my girlfriend. The principle is the same.

But in the hypothetical example, both my friend and my girlfriend have demonstrated beyond doubt that they do not consider sex outside monogamy a betrayal, except of course, for the caveat I explained.

Hanes demonstrates an important difference between people who believe their morality is dictated by God and those who don't.

For Hanes, apparently, sexual fidelity is simply a commandment from God, without which, we would have no reason not so screw our friend's girlfriend.

Or maybe I have that wrong. Tell us, Hanes, if God said it was OK to screw your friend's girlfriend, would you have any reason not to do it?

Do you even talk?

It must be your body she likes not your brain.
=======================

sbw

Where BB has failed to tread is how he discovers whether anyone else shares his moral code. What is it, how can he know, and how can he be sure.

Free Radical

If God said it was OK to screw your friend's girlfriend, would you have any reason not to do it?

For myself, sure- I would be too busy checking myself into a mental hospital.

But the Gods do 'tell' me things, BB- one of which I will share with you: they tell me not to search around for weird rationalizations for 'not acting like a dirtbag.'

Free Radical

ARRGH- I think I forgot to close the italics... sorry!

Pops


Bunkbuster: I'm "good" out of empathy. I don't screw my friend's girlfriend, because I wouldn't want him to screw mine.
---------------------------------------
Excuse the language please, but
Given that statement, since I don't mind other men screwing my girlfriend, I get to screw yours. Surely you can empathize with me?

I take it you don't eat meat, since I am sure you empathize with the poor chicken, cow, etc. that didn't want to be eaten (That is why they run from pray your know).

By the way, I don't recall God ever saying anything about screwing someone else girlfriend, perhaps you can provide a reference?

What you describe (you don't do things for fear someone will do the same to you) is not 'empathy'. Empathy means you understand your friends emotions about having his girlfriend cheat and the betrayal that would entail. Your feeling is one of fear of retribution, not empathy.

Pops

BB ""Hanes demonstrates an important difference between people who believe their morality is dictated by God and those who don't.""

No, I believe he demonstrated the difference between having his own internal moral code and your situational ethics.

You clearly stated that you don't have sex with your friends girlfriend, ONLY up to the point he doesn't have sex with your girlfriend - once he passes that point, your situational ethic says its now OK for your to have sex with his girlfrind, while Hanes is saying, having an actual moral code means he still wouldn't have sex with his friends girlfriend because he has beliefs beyond the current situation, while you do not. It doesn't take God to figure that out.

bunkerbuster

Pops -- You must have missed my initial comment where I covered that.

If my friend is screwing my girlfriend, he's demonstrating that fidelity is not an issue for him and the same for my girlfriend. Therefore, I can screw his girlfriend without violating his trust or my girlfriend's.

I would normally choose not to screw his girlfriend out of empathy for his feelings and because it wouldn't be honest as I don't call someone my girlfriend unless there is a presumption of monogamy. But my girlfriends choice to sleep with my friend demonstrates that there is no presumption of monogamy, so I can then screw someone else without hurting her feelings or violating her trust. (Save for the caveat I explained on my initial post.)

As for verifying my moral code: I consider it self-evident, even mathematical. Reflexivity, reciprocity. It's simple and underlies all morality.

Pops writes: ``since I don't mind other men screwing my girlfriend, I get to screw yours.''
No, because I haven't demonstrated to you that I don't fidelity is unimportant to me. If I screwed your wife first, then of course, you would "get" to screw mine, provided she obliged.

It's either odd, telling or both that you'd misunderstand the concept of reciprocity. I wonder if this is representative of conservatives, or just Pops...

sbw

I'm finishing writing a book that touches considerably on character which, of course, touches on morality and where it must be manufactured to be be effective.

It turns out that for morality to apply across cultures, which is required to facilitate society, one cannot depend on it coming from one religion's flavor of God or from Bunkerbuster either.

What a dilemma.

Is bunkerbuster just now figuring out what a prisoner he is?
====================================

What's that about opening your mouth and confirming that you are a fool?

Son, look at it this way; by your infantile method of trying to label a consistent conservative position, basically creating strawmen and lighting them on fire, you create for yourself a tactically disastrous position. While it is easy to construct a counter-argument to each of your mistaken generalizations about conservatives, it is even easier to trash the jejeune maunderings, of you the individual, the specific and foolish progressive.
=============================

Thomas Collins

James Schall is a good place to start for any consideration of current thinkers on matters political and theological. See LUN for a few short pieces containing a summary of his thoughts.

Jane

JMH,

I love the "Hanes" part. So do you want to screw my girlfriend?

What separates liberals and conservatives from what I can tell is conservatives operate on the world as it is, and liberals operate on the world as they think it should be. If only all people were perfect, liberal ideology would work.

BB, if I were you I'd find out what your "girlfriend" was doing on Saturday night since you spent the entire night here.

Thomas Collins

I guess the LUN only went to the main page. Let's try a link to a specific piece.

bunkerbuster

SBW: what does morality have "come from" in your view?

Janet

"What separates liberals and conservatives from what I can tell is conservatives operate on the world as it is, and liberals operate on the world as they think it should be. If only all people were perfect, liberal ideology would work."

Well said Jane. Liberals leave out true human nature...so their ideas must be tweeked and multiplied endlessly because utopia is not working out as they thought it would.

Thomas Collins

For anyone interested in the thoughts of a serious man challenging belief in the Almighty, see LUN.

Although Russell's essay focuses on a critique of Christianity, the essay is a worthwhile read for any believer interested in a thoughful response from the other side, and for any non-believer who would like to move beyond the laughable talking point thinking all too characteristic of today's secular movement.

PD

off

Porchlight

off?

Porchlight

It's either odd, telling or both that you'd misunderstand the concept of reciprocity. I wonder if this is representative of conservatives, or just Pops...

I can't speak for Pops, but perhaps he does understand it perfectly well and just doesn't subscribe to it.

Standards are just that - standards. They don't change according to situation. If it is not okay to sleep with your friend's girlfriend, then it is not OK regardless of what your friend is doing with your girlfriend. The morality of one behavior is not dependent on the existence of another.

This is truly easy for most people to understand.

Let me dumb it down for a smart liberal like you: is the only reason you don't murder your friend's girlfriend because he hasn't murdered yours?

Jane

So let me get this straight because I'm confused. Is it okay for your girlfriend to sleep with her neighbor and not tell you regardless of the arrangement between you and your best friend? Does her "morality" count in your equation, or is she just a prop for yours?

Jane

So let me get this straight because I'm confused. Is it okay for your girlfriend to sleep with her neighbor and not tell you regardless of the arrangement between you and your best friend? Does her "morality" count in your equation, or is she just a prop for yours?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame