10

And the Survey SAYS...

Posted by sdesapio 4 years ago to Entertainment
233 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

A few weeks ago we asked you, the Atlas Shrugged community, to fill out an anonymous online survey. Thousands of you responded and, while we will NEVER divulge any personally identifiable information about any of our members, following are some very interesting meta results.

Gulch, here's who we are...

- - -

Sex
29% Female
71% Male

- - -

Age
6% Under 30
26% 30-49
43% 50-65
23% Over 65

- - -

Marital Status
15% Single
4% Cohabitating
66% Married
10% Divorced
2% Widowed

- - -

Political Affiliation
2% Democrat
18% Independent
23% Libertarian
35% Republican
16% Tea Party

- - -

Voted in the 2012 Presidential Election
93% Voted
3% Did not vote
3% Not registered to Vote

- - -


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Amazed 4 years ago
    Re BambIB's comment.
    I am a female, and not one of the 23%. For - like MANY women fans of Ayn Rand (and I know plenty) I was not part of this survey. (Nor on this forum, until your comment riled me so that I had to join just to post, once.)
    Grow up and realise these are only statistics.
    Most women I know don't have the TIME to post on forums!!! We are too busy helping wider society: raising families and contributing to the economy. And yes, I have 4 kids, and run 3 businesses which employ many dozens of people.
    Please keep your sexist comments away from the gulch.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 4 years ago
      "helping wider society" I find this statement odd, for someone who is a fan of Ayn Rand. "contributing to the economy" what does that even mean??
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by hybrazil 4 years ago
        I don't get your objection. The main characters in AS spent a lot of time helping each other. That's what the book is about. That's what the gulch is about. They don't "live for another" as they put it, but they certainly help each other and they see it as an investment in each other. In the gulch, they contribute to their own economy.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 4 years ago
          in any non-coercive transaction both parties benefit. but this is not helping each other in any sort of altruistic sense. Nor is it doing ANYTHING for the benefit of society. There is no women bashing going on in this forum. The fact that it is brought up at all makes me suspect of the accuser. As well, busy or not, each person carves out time to accomplish what they wish to accomplish and depending on MANY factors. A "busy" woman may well decide that sharing information and promoting the ideas of Objectivism is a worthy use of time. Here is Rand on "helping wider society:"
          "When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals." Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by hybrazil 4 years ago
            Who said anything about altruism? Anyway, you're right in what you say, but I don't think you're hearing what AMAZED is saying to you. She's making a particular point.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by TERRYDOO2 4 years ago
    As a female teacher who believes Ayn Rand was a prophet to what's going on in our country today, please stop stereotyping. Many people are sick of the baloney, but are too afraid to speak up. They are afraid of our supposed "free press." We need to get the message out to all groups of people about the book.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
      Our "free" press is about 95% controlled by just 6 corporations which filter what people see, read, hear and (in most cases) ultimately believe.

      The internet is somewhat of an antidote.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bob44_ 4 years ago
    How do I count myself if I am a tea party republican and a 50% libertarian? Maybe the only thing I can be sure of is that I would never be a democrat, socialist or a communist.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 4 years ago
      you are 100%. in here, we "count" you by contributions of your own free will. I am curious about your 50% libertarian. which 50% do you not count yourself as?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Bob44_ 4 years ago
        I think some leading libertarians go too far with some issues. Their basic beliefs are correct, but making them work is like democracy, it just won't work over a long period. It takes too much work and people are too lazy. I don't care for the masses, but try to govern without them. Can't producers find a new world to populate and start over?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 4 years ago
          sigh. sometimes I wonder if we are going to devolve into city states. even Hong Kong is well aware if they draw the line on what China can suck off their teat, the "understanding" will end.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LeeCrites 3 years, 11 months ago
          The reason I always say "libertarian" instead of "Libertarian" is because I sense most of the leadership are "one note" types -- they can only hit on one note, and nothing else. For most of them, that "one note" is legalization of marijuana.

          Given the tyrannical "war on drugs" we are pretending to fight, I actually agree with them.

          But to me, being a libertarian is MUCH more than that.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
            I think that's the one note that the six companies that control 95% of all media WANT you to hear. It's to their advantage to have political parties in power they can control. How would they survive if you got a clue and realized that the Libertarians ARE your party - not just some Johnny Marijuana-seed caricature you've been fooled into believing?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 4 years ago
    I am not surprised that men outnumber women more than 2:1. Research by University of Chicago shows that in every state, as women got the vote, the governments of those states began to run increasing deficits. Happened at the federal level too. The reason, as near as the researchers could divine, was that women are more risk-averse than men and desperately want someone to "take care" of them... even if that "someone" is an Orwellian police state. Consequently, their votes are always for more government "programs".

    Clearly this is not ALL women, nor are ALL men on the right side of the limited government issue. But the gender gap is about 20% in recent elections, which is enough to give us a female-mandated Leviathan.

    I believe that this plunge towards economic armageddon is unstoppable, that so long as women are allowed to vote, and continue to believe that government is beneficent, the trend cannot be reversed.

    We therefore have two possibilities: Education (teaching women that the state is not their "friend") and reconstruction after armageddon. It's hard to convince someone that an entity that's handing out "free money" is not their friend, so that avenue is likely foreclosed. But what about when the dollar becomes worthless? What about when all those women sucking at the government tit find out the dollars they are getting are nothing more than paper? Is there an opportunity there?

    Yes, there is. It begins by getting the message out NOW that women are destroying the very system they depend upon, and that the dependence itself is the problem. Tell every female you know of the unavoidable consequences of the welfare state, predict for them the outcome and give them clear indicia of how the collapse will happen and what to expect... and tell them to remember it.

    They'll still take the "free money". They'll still rely upon government. They'll still suckle at Leviathan's tit. But when the end comes for them, when they see their children suffering, perhaps they will recognize that everything you said was true - that they are responsible for the destruction. Perhaps, if they survive the collapse, they will approach the rebuilding with a new view - that government is, at best, a necessary evil.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 3 years, 12 months ago
      while I do not deny certain statistics you mention, I disagree with your conclusions, though interesting. To focus on women's voting habits as a block is to miss the forest for the trees. Athens, Rome-both male dominated societies, fell for the same reason.
      “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
      ― Alexis de Tocqueville
      Pretty sure at the time of this writing, Congress was all MALE.
      The problems always stem from lack of property rights. Property rights' erosion accounts for massive debt, govt over-reach, govt spying on its citizens, graft and gratuity, lack of economic growth and wealth creation. Women cannot be blamed for the decisions of legislators and judges. They are in the minority of decision making power currently and past. As long as enough people in a group feel it's ok to steal an individual's property and ignore their rights, we are doomed to eventual failure.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 12 months ago
        The conclusion was not drawn from thin air. It is rather based on two major sources: One is the current makeup of the two major political parties and their associated voting patterns. In 2008 and 2012, Obama was elected, and re-elected, by a majority of the majority, along with minorities and majorities of minorities. The gender gap in the last election was roughly 20% Had women voted in concert with men, Obama would not have had a second term - nor even a first term, for that matter. Will anyone argue that Democrats have not been the party of socialism for decades? Or that Republicans are now following their lead for fear of becoming the party of irrelevancy? What group has the power to dictate results at the polls? Do blacks? Men? Homosexuals? Yes. But only in league with a substantial block of the majority: women. And it is only the majority that can ignore all other agenda and vote for themselves what they want from the public treasury.

        The second datum is a study done by University of Chicago that documented the fact that all the state and territorial governments, and the federal government itself, ran small and stable deficits from the time of their founding until women got the vote. That pattern was established for a period of roughly 100 to 150 years. Women did not get the vote all at once. As pointed out, Wyoming accorded women the vote in 1869 - more than 50 years before the feds got around to it. Other states likewise granted women the vote over that period of 50 years in a staggered pattern. In each case (according to the research, without exception) the deficits of the various governments began to rise following the women being allowed to vote.

        This is not necessarily iron-clad proof that the women's vote was responsible - but where some 51 cases of something occur independently and uniformly, and without counter-example, one would have to be a blinkered fool not to give substantial weight to the case. And what alternative is there? Being spread out over time eliminates the possibility that some single outside event caused the deficits. For example, had all the women gotten the vote simultaneously in 1920, followed by rising deficits, it might be some factor in world economics driving all the deficits without regard to whether women voted or not.

        In some regard, you are of course, correct. The majority of congress was, is and shall be for some time, predominantly male. Yet the job includes representing the constituency. If that constituency is demanding more welfare programs, a self-interested congressional representative will vote in such a way as to be re-elected. One who has the greater interests of the Country at heart in a liberal district, and refuses to "go along to get along", will be voted out by the majority women. Only in a few isolated cases (Ron Paul) have representatives been able to survive the onslaught of female voters.

        Finally, I am not casting stones at women. They are acting in what they perceive to be their own self-interest. I've already mentioned that the average American (regardless of gender) is a moron. But suppose they are only poor at mathematics, don't think much about the future, don't understand economics and have bills to pay they cannot afford. Do you not think that such people would tend to vote in favor of any program that helps them? Instant gratification has killed more than one budget. "Buy now, pay later"... except that now it IS later, the bills are due and we are going into debt faster than ever.

        Too, the evolution of women over the past 100,000 years has been different from men. It is no accident that the average male is stronger, or that the average female is better at communication. (Feel free to do your own research on those topics.) The bottom line is that women, generally, are more social (and socialistic) than men. It is a skill that women have depended upon for survival as surely as men have depended on physical strength.

        So it is that women, being more risk averse than men, looking for solutions through social(ism) avenues naturally see nothing wrong with setting up programs that benefit them, never giving a thought to the future.

        This lack of foresight will be the ruin of us all, and it is people now living, men and women, who will feel the full brunt of the lack of perspicacity.

        Naturally, if someone has countering data, I am more than happy to review it. But given the response of some on this forum, I feel obligated to point out that saying, "That's sexist" is NOT evidence of anything but personal bias.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LeeCrites 3 years, 11 months ago
          I'll throw a monkey-wrench into the works here.

          In the late 1840's, the country of Deseret allowed women (and even some of the Indians) the right to vote. They could own a business, own property, run for public office, etc. Those rights were stripped from them by the US government when Johnson's Army attacked and took over the country.

          Where was Deseret? Parts/all of modern: Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, and California.

          When gold was discovered in California, they applied for statehood, and it was granted. Unfortunately, there was a problem: The Mormons had been all but kicked out (via Gov Boggs extermination order). They went west to the Rocky Mountains, and established their own confederation with some of the local indians. They now were a significantly large country, well settled and organized.

          Which is why the USA invaded them in an unprovoked attack. The USA nationalized the country and all of its assets. In the process of doing so, they also stripped women of their rights.

          Now to the point: my research shows that Deseret never ran a deficit of any significant size. Social programs were ubiquitous, yet paid for.

          The problem never was women voting. It was (and remains today) a lack of discipline and ethics.

          Just for giggles and grins -- to add more fluff to this story, this is also when the SCOTUS made its first foray into dictating both religious freedom and marriage. For those who today think they are so out of line with their meddling with marriage, it is actually an old tradition of theirs.

          They, literally, forced men to abandon their wife and children, or go to prison, many for the rest of their life.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
            Not to put too fine a point on it, but are you familiar with Mormon religion/culture? While women play a larger role today, back then the head of the household would have told the women how to vote... and that's how they would have voted.

            Also, say what you will of Mormons, they're a lot closer to Gulchers than any other religion I can think of off hand. Name another religion that extolls the virtues of having a TWO YEAR supply of food on hand... and firearms.

            In many regards, due to religious persecution, the Mormon's have formed their own "gulches". I believe there's still one near the California-Nevada border that has plural marriage.

            Or, as another example, take the FLDS compound in Texas that was raided a few years back. They were almost entirely self-sufficient and independent - yet Leviathan saw fit to intrude. Still, I don't envision many of those women voting against the wishes of their husbands.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LeeCrites 3 years, 11 months ago
              Yes, for multiple generations I am familiar with the LDS Church.

              When you mix up the fundamentalists and non-LDS groups with the LDS Church, it shows a lack of understanding of who is who.

              The women of the LDS Church were the first women in this continent who had the right to vote. Stories abound of women who voted opposite of their husbands. When the US invaded Deseret, they took away their rights.

              BTW, it is the LDS women who I was attempting to reference when I said they were not fiscally ignorant. Many of these fine women do the financial work in the family, taking care of the budget and finances and such. They make it POSSIBLE for the family to get, and keep, their food storage.

              The FLDS compound in Texas is NOT the same as the LDS Church (the "real" Mormons). They do not treat their wife in the same way; they do not adhere to the standards the LDS Church demanded back when polygamy WAS acceptable. So comparing the two groups is spurious.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                I didn't mix up the LDS and the FLDS. I merely cited the FLDS as a group that was essentially independent until Leviathan went after them.

                >> it is the LDS women who I was attempting to reference when I said they were not fiscally ignorant.

                So, do you honestly believe that LDS women are representative of the entire female population of the United States? That their knowledge of economics and voting patterns in no significant way differ from the rest of the population? If not, then you've only confirmed what I've said about the bias in your sample.

                One example of how you might be wrong (not directly related to economics): Abortion. The majority of voting women are pro-abortion. How many LDS women are pro-abortion?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by LeeCrites 3 years, 11 months ago
                  When you said you did not mix up the LDS and FLDS, it appears you were correct. After re-reading your post, all you talked about where the FLDS groups -- the polygamous ones.

                  The LDS Church (which is what I assumed you were talking about when you said "Mormon") has over 14 million members around the world. The totality of all FLDS groups *might* be a couple of thousand folks, total, when all of the various sects and splinter groups are added together.

                  The LDS Church is expansive and public. It is broadcasting its messages to the world at large and becoming a common site in disaster relief all over the world. The FLDS folks keep to themselves and don't talk to outsiders.

                  I guess my mistake was that I assumed you would be talking about the "real" LDS Church instead of the tiny minority.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                    While I don't agree with the Mormon church on any number of issues and think some of their rituals are daft (really... baptisms for the dead? Magic underwear?) I recognize that in their dealings with the world they are relatively stable, not particularly offensive or oppressive (unless the missionaries get you cornered after dinner and let the "greenie" have at you ;-) and generally make decent neighbors - so long as you don't mind a little snooping and proselytizing along the way, and don't mind that they won't join you in a beer (although I understand it's okay to drink Pepsi, now that the Mormon Church has a significant financial stake in Pepsico.)
                    To the extent that they are more inclined to "brainwash" the flock, it's done to a purpose of cohesion and mutual support. At least it's not programming people to bake Jews in ovens.

                    Their view of the world generally seems to be more functional/practical than one finds in many religions, and the culture is one of self- and group- sufficiency.

                    I pointed to the FLDS as an example of that self-sufficiency taken to "gulch" levels. And while I understand that most LDS probably see the FLDS as a problem they wish would just "go away", I personally am inclined to think Leviathan shouldn't mess with them any more than they mess with the LDS.

                    For the record, I'm agnostic. I think all religions (including atheism which believes in the "no god") are poorly founded because there's no objective test, no repeatable experiment, to demonstrate validity. Whether it's an account from the Old Testament, or a more modern account from a horse thief who claimed to have found some gold tablets, they are all equally insupportable to me.

                    Is one of the stories correct? Maybe. I tend to think that they are all more likely to be the fabrications of people who outgrow their parents and need new "gods" to take their place.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
                      it's refreshing to see you take on other groups besides women. However, again, I must disagree with you on one point. atheism is NOT a belief system. It is an acknowledgement of all the evidence about a specific fact. Does not imply reason or lack of reason. It does not have broad implications-which is why Rand did not focus on it.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • -1
                        Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                        Potato. Potato. (Wait. That doesn't work in print, does it? ;-)

                        I characterize atheism as just another "religion" because there's no more evidence that there is NO god than there is A god. In both cases, people are mistaken (at best) when they say they "know" that god exists or does not exist because when pressed, there is no evidence either way.

                        The most an intellectually honest person can say about god is, "I don't know."
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
                          an intellectually honest person would say that thee is no evidence for God. The Christian concept of all-knowing, all-powerful means there is no definition for God. Definitions imply limitations that differentiate.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                            Once again, absence of evidence is NOT the same as evidence of absence.
                            And I don't consider the only "god theory alternatives" to be christian versus atheist.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
                              the christian god was an example.
                              a lack of facts is not evidence that something exists either. There is absolutely no facts to support god exists. ultimately, god is not defined in a way provable. Belief is based on faith. faith, by definition, is belief in something for which there is no evidence.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                                I don't disagree with any of that. But an atheist makes an assertion for which there is no supporting evidence, that being, "There is no god".

                                My scientific side revolts at such bald and unsupported gibberish, in large part because it's the exact analog of what religionists say about their religion, that is, "My religion is true" - without any proof or ability to test the hypothesis (or as you point out, without even a rigorous, testable definition of the hypothesis).

                                That's why I consider atheism another religion: The secular religion of the "un-god". It has no more (or less) basis in fact than ANY religion that relies upon the existence of a god, because (without any proof whatsoever) it rests on the requirement that no god exists! This, whether you care to admit it or not, is "belief in things not proven" which is typically the definition of "faith".

                                So you have an unprovable hypothesis (and one that isn't well defined or testable) and an act of faith that the hypothesis is true to the exclusion of all competing hypotheses.

                                How is that different from religion?
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
                                  we are not assuming something for which there is no evidence FOR. whenever religion has tried to define a testable hypothesis for what God is, it's proven wrong. Then other hypotheses are brought forward. Intelligent design, anyone? I have never seen gravity, but I know it exists. There is no testable hypothesis for God. As soon as you come up with one, I will prove it wrong with science. OA always reminds us, Occam's Razor. Postulating a God to solve a question when it is not necessary not=r adds anything to understanding. atheism simply rejects that premise. Mostly ignores it.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • BambiB replied 3 years, 11 months ago
                • Posted by LeeCrites 3 years, 11 months ago
                  Yes, I honestly believe that LDS women are representative of what all women can become. If they do, or do not, that is their choice.

                  That this group of women, now numbering 6+ million women from all walks of life, races, and socioeconomic backgrounds, is recognized internationally for their goodness, their stalwart support of things which build a better society, etc, says the the problem is not "women."

                  That misogynistic influences (both male and female) might try to say otherwise has nothing to do with it.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
                    LDS women are representative of what all women can become? eye roll
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by LeeCrites 3 years, 11 months ago
                      I see LDS women as honorable and charitable and fair and literate. They prove that women can be (or become) that way. It is not a requirement that a woman be LDS to be honorable and charitable -- but since that was the "peer group" I was talking about, it is the one I had to reference.

                      If *one* group, like the LDS Church Relief Society, can hold a sizable number of women who are internationally recognized as being honorable, charitable, literate, etc, then it is possible for other groups as well.

                      Now you could get away with the eye roll thing if I tried to say that *only* the LDS Church could produce such a group. But that was not my intention.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
                        whenever we are grouping people by belief system, we are leaving out an important component: reason. There is no way I will buy all LDS women act rationally, nor do LDS men. The generalizations going on in this post are gettin a little out of hand
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by LeeCrites 3 years, 11 months ago
                          I am one who happens to believe in the rational concept in psychology, so I'd have to disagree with your comment -- not just about LDS women, but people in general.

                          There is not much difference between rational thought ("Rationalism" ? ?) and objective thought (Objectivism).

                          I am afraid you are letting your religious beliefs get in the way of seeing what I am saying.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by LetsShrug 3 years, 11 months ago
                        I know some LDS women...and I have had heard them say, about other LDS women..."It's like the Stepford wives at church anymore...and none of them know how to cook these days." I heard they were going to start a relief society of some kind and have cooking classes. (Talking about the younger generation of women). Seriously, I've heard these types of comments from at least 3 different people. Sounds to me that the LDS is not immune to typical cultural decline. Lazy with their priorities messed up. Oh...and most of them are stuck up/superior, but they try really hard to pretend they aren't judgemental as hell. And what's this high-pressure system to get married all about? (Don't answer that...it was rhetorical.)
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by LeeCrites 3 years, 11 months ago
                          No, the LDS Church is not immune from the "typical cultural decline" -- especially since most of the members are first generation, meaning they joined the Church on their own, and bring whatever baggage they had before joining with them.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by LetsShrug 3 years, 11 months ago
                            Also...if the LDS church will let in Jodi Arias....one has to wonder what the screening process is like. (BTW I grew up heavy in the RLDS church...I have zero use for organized religion. It's just another form of collectivism which replaces logic with "faith". If you ask questions that can't be logically answered...THAT IS the answer "you have to have faith that Heavenly Father has a reason...." blaht!)
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by LeeCrites 3 years, 11 months ago
                              When folks ask a scientist for a reason, he gives them his best shot. Is he right? Who knows. Nobody expects a scientist to have every answer to every question, so when they don't, nobody walks away saying "science is the opiate of the masses." Plus, nobody looks at the scientist and judges him for his lifestyle or any mistakes he makes in his life or his personality quirks. He is, after all, a scientist.

                              When someone asks a religionist a question, he gives them his best shot. Is he right? Who knows. But everyone expects the religionist to have every answer to every question, even the trick ones, and he can never be wrong. If he is, then people abandon religion as false. Furthermore, if the religionist turns out to be human, with the foibles and quirks of fallen man, then people use that as an excuse to reject him and religion.

                              Be careful, my friend, how you judge. Your judgment is an open reflection of your heart. Seeing how people judge others and events and situations tells us everything there is to know about that person. Probably a good many things they would rather not have everyone else know.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
                                Lee, what questions of fact are religionists asked? Faith based arguments and revealed truths are not fact based discussions. I agree that a religionist has an uphill battle answering all the myriad reason based questions people come up with. Pray for a miracle. lol. I'm sorry, it's friday afternoon and I'm ready for a little joking. This does not mean that we can't live side by side and agree on much. You're certain I'm wrong and I'm still waiting for rational scientific answers. I do not care about your lifestyle.
                                OK, that said, I grew up across the river from Nauvoo. Most polite, well-groomed, well -spoken couples and families ever. and very interesting town and museums to visit.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by LetsShrug 3 years, 11 months ago
                                  I was in Nauvoo when I was a kid. Jumped on a hotel room (or Nauvoo guest room...not sure) bed while sucking on a butterscotch disk and almost choked to death on it. That's about all I remember about the whole trip.. I remember hearing "Zion" and "Independence MO". It was a family church group trip of some kind.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • khalling replied 3 years, 11 months ago
                                • Posted by LeeCrites 3 years, 11 months ago
                                  I don't want to argue the whole one-mans-fact-is-another-mans-fiction topic -- that is far to difficult to discuss face to face; typing in a blog just wouldn't work.

                                  But I'll counter with my question: What faith base questions are scientists asked?

                                  Lots.

                                  The difference is that scientists have numbers and figures and equations instead of chapters and verses.

                                  We take the "big bang theory" on faith. Faith that people have a clue when they look at signals received in a telescope from "out there" that they are interpreting it correctly. Nobody was there when it happened and there are no records from eye witnesses to tell us -- we have a consensus of folks who were virtually all trained using the same texts, so look at things in the same way. Hence consensus is relatively easy to get. But since they have numbers and charts and pictures, it is somehow considered "factual."

                                  We take certain points in the "theory" of evolution on faith. Some of the points are provable, hence, by faith, the rest are assumed. Arguments which deny evolution are simply discounted as "some religious fanatic" -- even when "intelligent design" (originally used to support evolution and counter creation) is used.

                                  Why do we have eye lashes? Easy answer: millions of years of evolution. But who were the first ones to have them, and why does everyone have them now? Easy answer: we don't have that information yet, you have to take it on faith...

                                  ...faith that some time, somewhere, someone will figure it out and have proof for you.

                                  You see, we take a LOT of scientific "knowledge" on faith. There is no proof, only theories which cannot be proven right or wrong, and which are generally accepted by those who pronounced them in the first place.

                                  Back in the 80's, I wrote a syndicated monthly op-ed article. It was only a couple of years, but still, it was something I did back then. I wrote a piece called "The Faith All Scientists Need" where I listed all of the things modern science must take on faith. Meaning things "known to be true," but for which there were no sure, empirical proofs available.

                                  My conclusion was that atheist scientists had to live by a greater degree of faith than the most devout Christian ever did.

                                  Enjoy your weekend...

                                  BTW: I love Nauvoo!
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • khalling replied 3 years, 11 months ago
                                  • BambiB replied 3 years, 11 months ago
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                                The difference is that every scientist is on the hook to explain his methodology and demonstrate his results. When reaching conclusions, repeatable experiments are key. Of course, this doesn't apply to areas where there are only hypotheses - as in "what happens inside a black hole?" But for areas considered "settled" in science, the entire road map of how to replicate the experiments is available.

                                In addition, theories change and improve as our knowledge gets better. Newtonian physics is pretty good as far as it goes, but it doesn't describe what happens at the atomic level. For that, greater understanding is needed. So science is constantly improving.

                                Religion? Not so much.

                                If anything, the superstitions of another age wear thin as mankind becomes more knowledgeable. Heinlein said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - but it goes the other way too. The "miracles" of an earlier time is often indistinguishable from thread-worn parlor tricks and comic book versions of reality.

                                My favorite example of that sort of stupidity is placing Galileo under house arrest and condemning him for saying that the earth revolves around the sun instead of vice versa. Any scientist who made such a monumentally-stupid statement would lose all credibility. And yet the inspired-by-god Catholic Church keeps chugging along with the same fools believing in its "infallibility".

                                The Mormon religion hinges on the book of mormon - touted by Joseph Smith as the "most perfect book on earth", chock full of errors: Jesus was born in Jerusalem, Over 4000 grammatical and spelling errors, and a litany of factual errors (Benjamin got the magic glasses? Or Mosiah? The angel who delivered the plates: Nephi? Or Moroni?) Some critics view the writing as "immature" as in when the armies of Shiz and Coriantumr fought until everyone was dead - except the two leaders. Really? When has THAT ever happened, except in comic books?

                                And bear in mind those are just a few of the INTERNAL flubs- mistakes that are observable without subjecting the entire belief system to the additional burden of repeatable experimentation.

                                Religion has none of that. There's no accountability in religion because there are no reproducible results. It may all be true, or all be false, or some true or some false, just like any tall tale. But the thing religion is not is this: Verifiable.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                    Jeez, Lee. You started out so well!

                    While I agree that LDS women are generally better representative of "civilized" women (and this is clearly just opinion), I've also found that on average they tend to be less imaginative and generally less intelligent. They are, to women generally, dray horses compared to wild horses.

                    Again, my opinion only, but I think anyone (male or female) who dedicates a substantial portion of their life to an unsupportable proposition is a bit of a dullard. I recognize that the Mormon church offers practical advantages that have nothing to do with religion (community support), and thus it may be a rational decision in some cases to sacrifice reason, logic and freedom to avoid penury and depredation. In short, Mormon women are not alone in "selling their souls" to the church to have a better materialistic life.

                    Again, opinion only, but I believe that someone who would dedicate a good portion of their lives to a fable told by a horse thief about "golden tablets" he "found" (but never showed to anyone) immediately calls their basic intelligence into question.

                    So there are pluses and minuses to Mormon women.

                    Even accepting your premise that Mormon women are not the problem, Mormons are scarcely the majority ANYWHERE (except maybe Utah). Just as women here in the Gulch likely did not vote for Obama, so too it's probable that neither did Mormon women. And yet the overwhelming majority of women DID vote for Obama and his promises of socialism.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
                      The overwhelming majority of women did not vote.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
                        for Obama. The voting population in the US is over 240M. More than half are women. More men than women do not vote, but 70 M voted in the last election. Roughly 60% of voting aged women. There is no way to prove those who did not vote would have voted for Obama. This is just anecdotal, but I know many conservative women who did not vote, because they felt Romney would be weak in office and we'd end up with the same problems, maybe slowed down. I did not agree with that opinion.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                        True. The overwhelming majority of women who did vote, voted for Obama.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
                          so what? does not mean the majority of voting aged women supports Obama!
                          The way to solve this problem is not to deny the vote to a particular sex. It is to uphold property rights, which would make it illegal to vote for theft.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                            And yet, if the majority is stealing your property, how will you get them to vote to stop? (The Founders had a pretty good idea. They did it with guns.)

                            While I think I've said I believe the 19th Amendment is the greatest legislative mistake in the history of America (and if I haven't, I say it now), I believe the greatest judicial failure in our history is Wickard v. Filburn (and its ilk). Of course, there are many judicial blunders to choose from, Wickard seems to have had the longest lived and most pernicious effect on America.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Rocky_Road 3 years, 11 months ago
            Pretty interesting history, and you have kept me busy for the last half hour!

            I figured out that you meant Johnston:

            "Colonel Albert Sidney Johnston led the Utah Expedition to put down a Mormon rebellion against the Union. In the Civil War he became a high ranking general in the Confederate Army and was killed at the Battle of Shiloh in 1862."

            A great deal of facts are here for anyone as interested as me:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_De...

            The female vote never had any chance to make any lasting impact, since all of this was pretty much settled within a handful of years, and most of those years were in constant flux politically. Deseret's quest for provisional statehood was never granted by Washington, although Washington was constantly interfering with Brigham Young's efforts to rule as he saw fit.

            I am now determined to find some definitive historical account of the Mormon story!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LeeCrites 3 years, 11 months ago
              Reply #2 to Rocky_Road:

              I spoke with one family in Spanish Fork whose family had records showing a group of leaders approaching Brigham Young about attacking Johnston's army in the plains.

              Apparently, there were sufficient men willing to fight -- and enough Indian tribes who would probably join in the fight against the US army, that a formidable army could be mustered.

              It was completely feasible for Deseret to meet Johnston's army, and before anyone could do anything about it, totally destroy the largest army the US had. Then march on Washington -- using captured supplies being sent to support Johnston's army.

              Brigham Young declined to attack. He (and other LDS Church leaders) felt the Constitution was a divine document, and should be preserved. If Deseret attacked, the chances of victory were great, but then the country God established could be destroyed. It was not worth the risk.

              I looked for "proof" of that story in the "official records," and never found it. Apparently a sizable number of leaders, including a variety of Indians, met and discussed it. But there is NO mention of it -- outside of a few diaries.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Rocky_Road 3 years, 11 months ago
                Somebody has to had put this down on paper.

                I'll talk to one of my friends in the History department and see if he has any suggestions.

                Or would that be the Religion Dept?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by LeeCrites 3 years, 11 months ago
                  If you're talking BYU, I'm not sure either one. If Truman Madsen was still around, HE might have been able to tell you. Not so much because of his position there, but because he was that good of a researcher and historian.

                  The folks from FAIR probably won't help, unless you are a converted Nibleyite and just know who to ask.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LeeCrites 3 years, 11 months ago
              Rocky_Road: I'll give you a couple of hints to help:
              1) To the victor go the spoils -- and the biggest "spoil" is the ability to write the history. Those who attempted to write the "real" history were shut up.
              2) Not even the folks in Utah are taught their history properly.
              3) When the USA took over, anyone who opposed them was put in prison or killed.

              This is a good lesson for what they will do today, if we allow them.

              I lived in Utah for 10 years (in the 1980's). While I was there, I spoke with some of the folks whose ancestors discussed the events in their diaries. But even when I lived there, rank and file folks WOULD NOT TALK ABOUT THIS!!!

              Understand the lengths the US government went to in order to keep these folks in check. They destroyed families. They nationalized everything they could, and made the people buy back their own properties.

              The forced half of the people to belong to one political party and the other half to belong to the other political party. Literally standing in a meeting and pointing to people and assigning them to a political party.

              And even today, when people talk about the LDS Church and Deseret, all they talk about is polygamy. The disinformation is still so pervasive that getting real information is virtually impossible.

              You will have to make friends with, gain the trust of, and then ask the people who still have the diaries to quote.

              Good luck in your quest. I'm available for questions...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Rocky_Road 3 years, 11 months ago
                "Good luck in your quest. I'm available for questions..."

                Good.

                Give me a book title that tells both sides, or even the LDS side only!

                I promise to absorb it like a sponge, and come to my own conclusions.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by LeeCrites 3 years, 11 months ago
                  I will make a few calls -- but when we lived in Utah (1985 - 1995), none existed I could find. The topic is (or at least was) anathema.

                  Most historians are so focused on religious topics that this political stuff is of little interest. And if they WERE interested, the political ramifications could be devastating.

                  The LDS Church has "moved on," and closed those chapters in history. Even the last President (Gordon B. Hinckley), who did a lot of interesting stuff with Church History, did not like to open some of the "old wounds."

                  Keep in mind that many of the families with the information we are talking about were the polygamous wives and children of men who were put in prison for having the "sin" of having more than one wife -- long before the SCOTUS declared it illegal. They felt in a very real way the privations of what the US government is fully willing and capable of doing.

                  They do not like to talk about this -- and I do not blame them.

                  But I'll make a few calls to see what I can find.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by kabir203 4 years ago
      I do hope you know that women are now more likely to pursue higher education than men, get a higher degree than men, and at better schools than men, and that unmarried women are twice as likely to buy a house as unmarried men
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dirty_industrialist 4 years ago
      This just kind of lkeaves me speechless. You have just insulted every single woman (ESPECIALLY the Randian ones) who has overcome the ignorance, prejudice and outright discrimination of the past 100 years or so to become leaders in creating real wealth in the real world. I depend on NO system, I make things happen through hard work, my own pocketbook, and emplying those who share my vision of making a good product for a fair price and thereby contributing to the betterment of my own life, and the 30 families that work for me. Give your head a shake. The faction of women who are "system tit suckers" is so small compared to the number of women who make shit happen, the right way, in the 21st century all over the world. I am sure that if she were here today, Ms. Rand would join me and my fellow Dagny Taggarts in flipping you the collective bird while our train passes you by.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yes, it spent itself into oblivion-the exact mechanism was slightly different, but it was a welfare state.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
      Not sure which you're referring to - Weimar Germany or Rome - but thanks for making my point. Other civilizations may have fallen for other reasons - none of which has anything to do with the disaster facing America - brought on by female voting patterns.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rocky_Road 3 years, 11 months ago
      Welfare as being the 'fall of Rome' is news to me.

      What I submit to be the reason for Rome's collapse was their insatiable desire for expansion. And Rome's inability to finance this expansion on the backs of the Roman citizens.

      There was no world economy, or International Monetary Fund, to underwrite this addiction...all they could do was to conquer, then plunder through taxation of the conquered. This had a short success, but the real 'books' showed a negative return. The cost of maintaining the Roman Empire was the death knoll, or death rattle, if you prefer.

      Over achievement is the culprit here...not social programs.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rocky_Road 3 years, 11 months ago
          The World According to a Libertarian does not settle this.

          The Roman military expenditures to maintain it's empire broke the camel's back, and bankrupted the economy. Bread and circuses were employed to mask the growing deficit, not unlike the 99 week unemployment benefit, manipulated Wall Street results, SS disability giveaways, food stamps, etc. are being used today.

          I am all for saying that Rome used welfare to quell the masses, but stand by my understanding of the Roman Empire to repeat that their global expansion, and subsequent overwhelming military costs, both brought this upon them, and brought them ultimately down.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
            the whole whole libertarian thing is an ad hominem attack. on THIS site? what-perhaps Krugman's perspective would carry some weight with you?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Rocky_Road 3 years, 11 months ago
              I call BS on the ad hominem reference.

              The site is promoting Ron Paul, and sees history in that light. That doesn't mean that it is in-factual, but it does mean that a great deal of other information is excluded if it is of no benefit to the 'cause'. In short: it is biased, and has it's agenda.

              I'm happy to have had my say on this, and we just agree to not agree.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
            hey, listen. I spend lots of time studying this kind of thing. I gave an entertaining link, but I can list books.
            wait a minute, why is the onus on me? what are YOU providing. I am amazed that I have even stayed in this nonsensical conversation(let's take the vote away from women) as long as I have. give me a point!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Rocky_Road 3 years, 11 months ago
              You get the point for endurance!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
                you are in sooo much trouble. do you think I sit around sucking the teat of ONE study?!?
                I can find you 5 different references to how Rome fell apart. The upshot is clear. de tocqueville said it long before women had the vote, based on historical precedent, as soon as people figured out they could vote in people who would give them feebies, instead of working for it, the american experiment would die.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                  So your argument is that for 100-150 years American men were unable to figure out that they could vote bread and circuses, but within 10 years of women getting the vote, everyone figured it out? That in states where women did not have the vote, no one figured they could vote for bread and circuses even when those in neighboring states (where women had the vote) did figure it out? Really? For 50 years that went on? As soon as women got he vote, the men also suddenly voted for bread and circuses, though they'd not done so for 150 years prior? Really? Think all the women were telling the men, "Now that we can vote for bread and circuses, you should too!"??

                  I think it rather more likely that the men understood the consequences - while women, with vastly inferior knowledge of economics - did not. Thus women, in their ignorance, have set America on the path of economic destruction.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Rocky_Road 3 years, 11 months ago
                  You are really invested in proving yourself right, aren't you?

                  This reminds me of the old man that was suffering from prostrate cancer, a brain tumor, and kidney failure. He spends the entire day in chemo, then dialysis, and finally an MRI.

                  The doctors release him for the day, and walking to the bus stop he gets dizzy and falls headfirst to the curb. The autopsy declares that he died from blunt trauma to the skull....

                  You are the forensic doctor focused on the head trauma...and wish to ignore all of the fatal preconditions.

                  I yield you the battle ground (again), I don't want to see you pound your head on the keyboard on my account! ;-)
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by eliastheartist 3 years, 12 months ago
    I signed up for the gulch months ago and just wandered in today. Just a few quick notes:

    Statistics are generally worthless and can be spun to mean everything and nothing.

    Stupid knows no race, sex or age and infects us all at some point in our life.

    Our civilization is collapsing and those who see it will be the ones who decide whether we fall into a dark age or rise into a golden age.

    And we will know pain, that is unavoidable now
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LeeCrites 3 years, 11 months ago
      There are two axioms I work with in relation to your comment: "Statistics are generally worthless and can be spun to mean everything and nothing."

      1) Figures never lie, but liars can figure.
      2) There are three kinds of lies: white lies, damn lies, and statistics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 12 months ago
    kabir203: You're a fine example of the problem we face in America. Instead of engaging the FACTS, you present a non-sequiteur and take umbrage. Yes, of course I'm aware of the social trends you mention. Are you aware that women still cannot do math, physics or engineering? Look up the stats on THOSE fields and tell me why intellectually equivalent females would shun such rewarding and lucrative careers? (Hint: It's partly because men's brains and women's brains do not work the same.) Oooh! Sexism!!??

    Nope. Science. In fact the CEEB went to great lengths to gender-norm the CLEP exam for Physics and ultimately discovered they could get gender-normed answers - OR - they could test aptitude for doing physics. Not both. Interestingly, where problems called for rote application of a formula, or arithmetic computation, women actually surpassed men. Where they collapsed was in abstract reasoning, and advanced computation.

    And this is just a tiny sample of the differences.

    But quite beyond that, women are more risk averse than men. Look around at your fellow 14-year-olds. How many female skateboarders? In fact, pick a "risky" venture that you or your friends engage in and ask yourself... How many participants are female?

    Even at your age, the difference is apparent. But what it comes down to in later years is that women do not want to depend on themselves. They want to have someone to back them up. They want... government programs.

    There's another aspect in play - and you haven't been around long enough to see it happen - but for about the past 50 years, society has promoted women over men. There are scholarships, job opportunities, educational assistance programs that exists only for women. Men are discriminated against. Will we see that discrimination turn? Will men, now the minority in schools (as you've pointed out) and in home ownership now get government assistance for tuition, books, fees, scholarships and home ownership?

    Most men just want those programs to go away. But the women? No. The women (the majority) want them to stay. And so they shall... until the government collapses under their demands.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rocky_Road 3 years, 12 months ago
      There is a current book making the rounds and getting some good feedback titled "Men On Strike", by Dr. Helen. You might find it interesting!

      http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/20...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
        Am now reading, "Men on Strike". Clearly, it had to be written by a woman, else no one would have given it any credence. So far, the author seems to be on the mark - but I think she's missing the bigger picture. It's not just relationships that women have destroyed - it's the entire Country. But I'm only part way through the book, so maybe she makes the point later.

        Thanks again for the reference!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rocky_Road 3 years, 11 months ago
          I am probably one of the few here that agree that woman's suffrage was the beginning of the nanny state. We are not well received in this!

          The emasculation of men is a huge part of the "bigger picture". Let me know how you feel at the finish!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
            men were voting stupid before women ever got the vote. I think we're doomed by mayor dailey the 1st tactics.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
              Yes, men were voting stupid. But they weren't voting colossally moronic! In general, all the states and the federal government ran small deficits that were essentially yearly round-off error. The budgets could easily have been balanced at any time.

              Once women got the vote, EVERY STATE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT began to have soaring debt. This didn't happen all at the same time, mind you. Women got the vote over a period of 50 years. But following their voting, in any of the states (first 48 covered by the study) and the Feral Government, the governments plunged into debt and have never recovered.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
                I tend to see alot of that due to pensions as opposed to women voting. pensions pushed by unions, with the endorsement of the federal government. I will allow women have to take the blame for voting Obama in, however
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                  Pensions? Can you be more specific?

                  In the study to which I refer (Lott), the governmental debt trended sharply upwards within just a few years of women getting the vote. Unless you have some evidence that the 48 states covered, and the Feral Government, all enacted similarly deleterious pension plans within 5 years of women getting the vote (something that happened over a period of 50 years), the argument that pensions are the proximate cause of budgetary imbalance isn't credible.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
                    http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publ......
                    as well, Nebraska has one of the lowest debts, but a higher than median % of adult women in the state. Finally, here is an article that falls between us with stats, but importantly, even though the conclusion is women were key in the 2008 election for Oboma, the % registered democrats of females over males is only slight-not large.
                    http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2......
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                      When I look at a study with 49 cases, and one case says, "Look - here's one place where women haven't succeeded in destroying everything", I don't conclude that it is the rule. Now if you could show that more than half of the states with female majorities had lower than median debt levels, you might be on to something.

                      Can you show that?

                      The study, if you'll recall, measured the CHANGE in debt after women got the vote. Uniformly, without exception, the debt began to soar. Have you even read the study? (If not, you're arguing from ignorance. No offense.)
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
                        do I seem like the type to argue without looking at the evidence presented? the most dramatic charts I saw favoring the argument were the charts showing 10 years before and after. My point is, and always has been that men are just as much at fault as women, and although the study does draw some parallels, I hold their are larger factors at play, mostly philosophical as opposed to women desiring safety, insurance. For example, In Germany, it is widely accepted that the welfare state was desired by Bizmark. Policies and planning began in the late 1800s and people voted for those changes overwhelmingly. Women got the vote in 1918.
                        I have already discussed that throughout history there have been governments whose demise was due to welfare policies, such as Rome. You never commented on that.
                        finally, regarding "rules," in your argument, women are grouped and then uniformly blamed. IChanging the argument from overall trends to a rule. Once a rule, all I have to do is show that women in a state who made up more than the median population does not fit the rule. This might lead to looking at other factors as a driving cause.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                          Oh. And I wasn't discussing Germany or Rome. I was discussing America. In case you're not aware, there are MAJOR societal differences between American women and women in other countries (not to mention other times... really - you want to bring up a country halfway around the world from 2000 years ago to bolster argument about American women today? Really?)

                          In fact, the book I just read has the current generation of American men offering the advice, "Don't marry an American woman." Having travelled in 20+ foreign countries, I'm prone to agree because, on average, I don't believe American women offer nearly as much as women who have grown up in other cultures. That's not to say there are NO good American women - but the general trend is... well, do your own research.

                          The problem with citing "other factors" is that American women got the vote over a period of 50 years. What other factor didn't exist before the first women got the vote, didn't exist in any state where women did not have the vote, manifested itself when women got the vote (in every case) and has persisted to this day? Can you cite ANY factor that meets that criteria? If you can, this could get to be a REALLY interesting conversation!! If not, then the study's conclusion remains the best available: The women's vote is responsible for the economic destruction of America.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
                            you're generalizing women, and then when I bring up counter examples, you want to to pigeon hole to your conclusions. but you haven't explained why this happened in Rome.why did welfare take hold in Germany before women voted. an historical economist could give you multiple examples of countries giving into socialist policies where women did not have the vote.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                              Actually, when one argues that cows have four stomachs, it is not a "counter example" to say that dogs only have one.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                              In actuality, it is YOU who are generalizing women - effectively claiming that women in Rome 2000 years ago and women in Germany in the late 19th and early 20th century are the same as American women in the mid-20th to early 21st century America. That's fine... IF you can make the case. In fact, you have not.

                              As counter-argument do you SERIOUSLY believe there are no cultural or economic differences between German women in WWI Germany and American women in post-WWII America? Or that women in 1 BC, had the same concerns as American women in 1920? They don't share a common geography, language, history, culture... anything but the second X chromosome, and yet you GENERALIZE that they are all the same?? Is yours a serious argument? Or are you just trolling?

                              If you can demonstrate that women were the same 2000 years ago in Rome as they are today, perhaps you have a point. If you can demonstrate that the motivations in Germany (all at one time) were the same as women in America (over a period of 50 years, in 48 states and the Feral government) MAYBE you have a point.

                              But you cannot LOGICALLY claim one is just like the other without establishing that it is so. In the examples the study author cites, he is drawing conclusions from 48 states of the USA, plus the Federal government regarding the effect of voting by AMERICAN women, effectively presenting dozens of cases (because women got the vote at different times) that prove his thesis.

                              You have presented... well... nothing.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago
                                that was a lengthy rant restating what I did not state in the first place. Far from comparing women from different time and different countries, I focused on similar patterns of freer nation devolving into welfare states and eventually falling apart. women had little if anything to do with it. it is a well-known paradigm. So far, you've been a one trick pony in the Gulch. I look forward to you posting on other topics
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                                • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                                  Actually, the study had specific, graphical representations showing the effect of female voting in America. What you appear to be saying here is that you're talking about something completely different - that other countries have devolved. I've been pointing out that the huge debt (~$17 trillion) and unfunded requirements (~$200 trillion over the next 50 years) are due to female voting patterns.

                                  Did ancient Rome run a similar debt? Did Rome borrow a third of its budget from other countries (as we do from China)?
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • khalling replied 3 years, 11 months ago
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                          I agree that men are as much at fault as women... but not for the same reasons. Women are at fault because, as a voting majority, they have destroyed our economy by voting for immensely-expensive social welfare programs.

                          Why are men at fault?

                          They let women vote.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LetsShrug 3 years, 11 months ago
            Is it really the emasculation of men or just that now there are more voters who are too emotional rather than reasoned?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Rocky_Road 3 years, 11 months ago
              Both.

              Double down on looting....
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LetsShrug 3 years, 11 months ago
                How have the men been emasculated? By their own sex drive? Give the women the vote so I'll still get laid?? Self emasculation if you ask me. I'm not asking this to be a smart ass....I really want to know.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
                  I think that's a valid point. Certainly men made society safe enough for women to speak out. When women began to speak, what they mostly said was, "Gimme!" There's a long history of men deferring to women - sometimes referred to as "White Knight" syndrome. "You never hit a woman!" (What if she hits you first?)

                  So yes, men have deferred - and all it's gotten them is more abuse.

                  According to the book I just finished reading ("Men on Strike") the younger generation of men sees the abuse suffered by the older generations - both personal and legal - and is opting out of relationships (specifically marriage) with women, preferring instead to "hook up" without commitment.

                  And yes, there are men who surrender their masculinity to get laid. The author refers to them as "Uncle Tims".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 12 months ago
        Thanks for the heads up. Looks like an interesting read. We're lucky it was written by a women. Had it been written by a man, it would have been dismissed as "sexist".

        For another "sexist" read, check out "Weak Link". It's been out for a while, but it's a good assessment of why women do NOT belong in the military... which is topical due to the recent decision by the command structure to further endanger men in combat zones by burdening them with women.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 12 months ago
    Jim Wright: You will eventually realize that your approach cannot work - not because it's not a good one, but because the average person in America is an idiot. No, seriously. Isn't the median IQ 100? How many people do you know below this level? (I daresay you know few of them, because you do not circulate in such company.) Point is, you are seriously - SERIOUSLY - overestimating the intelligence of the average American.

    Look at the last election. Even if they were completely duped the first time around - Obama AGAIN? If the average American had any brains at all, they would have elected Ron Paul in 2008 and he would be serving his second term now.

    So here's the problem: Pretend you're pitching your plan to a bunch of chimps. They'll listen to you for as long as you're handing out free bananas - then they'll laugh at you, clamp themselves on the ass and throw their shit at you.

    I don't think there's any chance of educating the average American anymore because so many now know things that just are not true. Even in this forum, I see charges of "sexism" when all I've done is present facts. Even here, people go off half-cocked, responding to things that were never said. What chance have you among the general population, a substantial portion of which only wants government handouts (and another group of which only wants to profit by providing those handouts via government contract)?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 12 months ago
    Dirty_Industrialist: If you're left speechless, it's likely because your reading comprehension is not up to snuff, or you were unaware of the facts. But given that you found the facts insulting, I'll go with the former.

    Try reading again. And don't give me that utopian bilge... in America, women are the largest group of government tit-suckers. Who do you think votes for "affirmative action" and welfare? Remember, it can't pass without a MAJORITY... and that's what women are - the majority. They started out in 1869 in Wyoming where women were first given the vote. They voted for more debt and more government. And they have... not... stopped.

    The women here in the gulch are decidedly in the minority among women. And "Amazed" lame excuses aside (as if men have so much more "time" than women) the truth is the reason men outnumber women more than 2:1 here is because women don't believe in freedom and self-sufficiency in anywhere near the same proportion as do men.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bartdark 4 years ago
    I am not terribly surprised at any of the data disclosed above.

    Especially about the ages of the respondents. It indeed takes some "real world" maturity for a person to realize that even the best governments are makeshift, limited benefit propositions and from that fact alone should make it a logical decision to limit the power ANY government you're dealing with.

    I'm a Jeffersonian, the original "small government" guy, so my political affiliation wasn't represented- not surprisingly.

    One question, aren't divorced people considered single if they aren't married anymore?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by C_S 4 years ago
    6% Under 30
    26% 30-49
    43% 50-65
    23% Over 65

    If you figure that 26% between 30 and 49 means roughly 26% ÷ 2 = 13% between 40 and 49, that means only one in five here is under forty, and only one in three is under fifty.

    So Rand is failing very dramatically to attract a new generation. Like the GOP, the demographics of time are running against it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mspalding 4 years ago
    Does this spell doom for the Objectivists? 66% are old guys. Only 6% are under 30. Where is the next generation?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by deed42 4 years ago
      @mspalding, I would not worry about the younger generation. As Reagan said, a young person who is not a liberal has no heart, an old person who is not a conservative has no brain. I am paraphrasing, and I blame it on the beer. But the point is that it takes a while for some people to see that gov't hand out hurt society in the long run.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by kblasius 4 years ago
        "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty, you have no brain." ― Winston Churchill

        SInce I am 20 (and female, by the way) I suppose I have no heart. :)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by deed42 4 years ago
          Ahh, yes. I forgot it was said by two 20th century greats. I'm not touching the male/female argument above. But I'll just assume you have a heart AND grew your brain early!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm permalinked here. which means I can't see all that I am typing so please bear with me. Big Bang: we do not have to have been there to have evidence.We have never been inside the Sun to physically see nuclear fusion but we know it exists based on other evidence.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LeeCrites 3 years, 11 months ago
      So? What makes us think the "evidence" we see is reflective of reality?

      Let me try to put it another way: If the universe is as old as they say, and the total time humans have been in existence is as short as they say, then every bit of data we could possibly have been able to accumulate is like seeing one single frame, somewhere towards the end of the massive "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and trying to guess what happened in the previous 9 hours of the movie.

      Some very smart (meaning highly educated) people are looking at the data they have in front of them, and making what to them is a highly educated guess as to the meaning of that data. Their "scriptures" are the numbers and equations and various data points, as well as the training they received and statements of previous, highly educated, individuals.

      I, personally, cannot argue with their education or their equations or their assessment of the data or their conclusions. But I *can* see that with their limited vision of what has happened in the past, that in order to truly come to those conclusions, they have to take an awful lot "on faith."

      You mentioned the sun. The problem with this one is that nobody knows how or why the sun does what the sun does. What made the sun form? What made it "kick on" so it started the nuclear reactions? What makes it maintain those reactions? There are guesses by highly educated individuals, but, again, we are left looking at "other evidence" and trying to formulate in our mind a logical reason for them to exist. It is "faith" in the minds of the ones doing the formulation that makes the rest of us believe them.

      But we don't understand any of it, really. There is still argument as to whether ray of light is a wave or a particle. Sometimes it "acts like" one, and sometimes it "acts like" the other. Is it that the ray of light changes? Or is it our ability to measure it is totally inadequate? Is it our ability to look at the evidences we have and reach a correct conclusion? The "greatest minds" are still debating the true existence of light, and we see it every day.

      If we truly reach down to the guts of most "scientific truths," we will see initial assumptions which have been "taken on faith" as axiomatic.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 11 months ago
        "I, personally, cannot argue with their education or their equations or their assessment of the data or their conclusions."

        100% agreement on that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 3 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    wow, you missed some of the finer points. I, too, have choked on a butterscotch candy, Brachs. traumatizing as it made its way sl-o-w-l-y down the esophagus
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LetsShrug 3 years, 11 months ago
      Probably didn't miss them....just don't remember them. I didn't swallow mine... I was with a bunch of kids...the parents were nearby but in another room...finally one came in...noticed me turning blue probably and wacked me on the back. SCARY! Those esophaguses can come in handy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 3 years, 12 months ago
    My comments are not merely addressed to the gulch stats. They address wider ranging facts. The majority of the Democratic Party member are... come on, anyone. Don't you know? Female. And the majority of Republicans are... come on, "Amazed", you can get this one. Men. Right.
    And which party has been the "social welfare" party? Need some time on that one? Ah, I'll just give it to you: Democrats.

    Now in case you missed it in my earlier comments, I've already pointed out that the gender gap is about 20%. But here's the bottom line: For every 10 women like "Amazed", there are 15 women who would sell your freedom in a New York second if they thought it would buy them more government programs.

    Another part of the problem "Amazed" is that when people are given the facts, they say something stupid like, "Please keep your sexist comments away from the gulch" instead of, "I didn't realize that most of society's problems arise because women are generally afraid of their own shadows and demand government intervention".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo