Rightwing personality traits

[Katyusha]

Wonder what people will say about this.

 

[WRJames]

LYMErix [Lyme Disease Vaccine (Recombinant OspA)] is a noninfectious recombinant vaccine developed and manufactured by Smith Kline Beecham Biologicals. The causative agent of Lyme disease is Borrelia burgdorferi; in North America, all Lyme disease is due to Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto. The vaccine contains lipoprotein OspA, an outer surface protein of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto ZS7, as expressed by Escherichia coli. Lipoprotein OspA is a single polypeptide chain of 257 amino acids with lipids covalently bonded to the N terminus.

A recombinant vaccine against Lyme disease, based on the outer surface protein A (OspA) of B. burgdorferi, was developed by GlaxoSmithKline. In clinical trials involving more than 10,000 people, the vaccine, called LYMErix, was found to confer protective immunity to Borrelia in 76% of adults and 100% of children with only mild or moderate and transient adverse effects.[111] LYMErix was approved on the basis of these trials by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on December 21, 1998.

Following approval of the vaccine, its entry in clinical practice was slow for a variety of reasons including its cost, which was often not reimbursed by insurance companies.[112] Subsequently, hundreds of vaccine recipients reported that they had developed autoimmune side effects. Supported by some patient advocacy groups, a number of class-action lawsuits were filed against GlaxoSmithKline alleging that the vaccine had caused these health problems. These claims were investigated by the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), who found no connection between the vaccine and the autoimmune complaints.[113]

Despite the lack of evidence that the complaints were caused by the vaccine, sales plummeted and LYMErix was withdrawn from the U.S. market by GlaxoSmithKline in February 2002,[114] in the setting of negative media coverage and fears of vaccine side effects.[113][115] The fate of LYMErix was described in the medical literature as a "cautionary tale";[115] an editorial in Nature cited the withdrawal of LYMErix as an instance in which "unfounded public fears place pressures on vaccine developers that go beyond reasonable safety considerations."[116] The original developer of the OspA vaccine at the Max Planck Institute told Nature: "This just shows how irrational the world can be... There was no scientific justification for the first OspA vaccine [LYMErix] being pulled."[113]


There are no cancers that go into remission in any predictable fashion.

And atheists don't have to create straw men gods, they only have to dismantle the gods posited to exist by theists. Atheism is only a reaction to theism.

Well, the vaccine did not work, which probably contributed to its unpopularity. There are over 200 strains of Lyme, according to my physician, This makes detecting it and developing an effective vaccine rather challenging.

Do a Google search on Lyme strains if you don't believe me.

As for cancers and remission -- see this. There are similar controversies, actually older, for prostate and thyroid cancer. Many people are being maimed for no good reason in the name of science. I hope if it ever comes to a question for you or your loved ones you take the time to do some research and don't blindly follow the advice of your doctor.

Atheism as a reaction to theism is a strange assertion. God exists (or not) indepedent of our opinions on the matter. It's like saying that gravity doesn't exist just because we don't fully comprehend what it is.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Wonder what people will say about this.

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. ..."

---John Stewart Mill

 

[voluptuary_manque]

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. ..."

---John Stewart Mill

Exactly. There are some brilliant Conservatives and an entire mendicant population of generally stupid people who are fully in favor of a welfare state. If you select carefully enough you can define this as liberal. Of course, they only mean the portions of 'Liberal' that benefit them. And I'm going to stop right here because anything else I say will just get me in trouble.

 

[Darkniciad]

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. ..."

---John Stewart Mill

That article isn't exactly flattering to liberalism either, though. It almost defines the mindset as an egocentric "Look at how smart I am!" sort of thing. Plays right into the opposite side's assertion that liberals are elitists who think everyone else is beneath them and in need of shepherding.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

That article isn't exactly flattering to liberalism either, though. It almost defines the mindset as an egocentric "Look at how smart I am!" sort of thing. Plays right into the opposite side's assertion that liberals are elitists who think everyone else is beneath them and in need of shepherding.

Which only goes to show that dogmatic political positions are held by fools no matter what their natural neurology may be.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That article isn't exactly flattering to liberalism either, though. It almost defines the mindset as an egocentric "Look at how smart I am!" sort of thing. Plays right into the opposite side's assertion that liberals are elitists who think everyone else is beneath them and in need of shepherding.

Or, that liberals fear to trust their own lives to less intelligent minds.

 

[Darkniciad]

Just read back through that article again. ( I actually read it earlier in the day before the reference here )

Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach -- looking out for the people around you first -- fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. "It's unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers." he said.

What a giant load of poppycock *laugh*

Considering there has been charity and compassion for the needy throughout the whole of recorded history -- and indeed even debated evidence of it in the animal kingdom -- I find it rather difficult to believe that it's not simply a facet of life understanding that all life is connected in some way. The more self-aware the lifeform, the more likely they are to show compassion for another lifeform experiencing physical or emotional pain.

I'm calling bullshit on this particular quote.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Dark, I agree with you on that. Mammals are social by nature. We have to be, or else we die in infancy.
Evolutionalry biology/psychology/apologetics are a perfect example of a little learning being a dangerous thing. The amount of poppycock I read! And almost all of it is by way of excusing bad behavior as "evolutionarily preferential."

Read the works of Jaan Panksepp, for clear and well documented rebuttals to many evoBio claims.

 

[rgraham666]

Well, the creators of that study self-identified as conservative and libertarian who are people, in my experience, tend to regard empathy as an aberration. It's not surprising that they would assume that lack of empathy is a trait of the place and time we evolved from.

 

[LaRocha]

Well, the vaccine did not work, which probably contributed to its unpopularity. There are over 200 strains of Lyme, according to my physician, This makes detecting it and developing an effective vaccine rather challenging.
...

Atheism as a reaction to theism is a strange assertion. God exists (or not) indepedent of our opinions on the matter. It's like saying that gravity doesn't exist just because we don't fully comprehend what it is.

Again, the vaccine Lymerix did work. It is still used in Canada and Europe to prevent the dissemination of Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacteria that causes Lyme disease in humans and a variety of animals. The three main genospecies of Borrelia burgdorferi which are found in N America, Europe, Asia are all effectively combated by Lymerix. A vaccine is not a cure for Lyme disease, if you have Lyme disease or Polio you don't take a vaccine. Vaccination was developed to prevent disease, not treat disease.

If there exists a cancer that routinely goes into remission without human intervention I'd love to see the data. That's really a fantasy fiction saying that there are cancers that shouldn't be treated. Sure, many treatments for cancer have been hit and miss, probably more damage has been done with the greater variety of treatments to one individual. But in doing that damage many types of cancers are now manageable if not in the realm of curable(notably breast and prostate cancer.) Maybe you're also a believer in the Alive and Well campaign, these psychopaths that let their family members die because they deny a link between HIV and AIDS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive_&_Well_AIDS_Alternatives

Listen, A-theism (ἄθεος : against theism/deism/gods) Our language, the Greek language, already makes the assertion that atheism is a reaction to theism. Theism is a statement of comprehension, a statement of belief of fact. Atheism's only point is in undermining the ridiculous arguments that begin 'God exists, God exists for these reasons...' You know that God exists? Great. I know that you don't know that God exists, and I can prove it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, the creators of that study self-identified as conservative and libertarian who are people, in my experience, tend to regard empathy as an aberration. It's not surprising that they would assume that lack of empathy is a trait of the place and time we evolved from.

I had not even noticed Kanazawa's name attached to that article. The man is nutso, an evo-fundamentalist. Here read his blog-- notice that he does not allow comments...

 

[LaRocha]

I had not even noticed Kanazawa's name attached to that article. The man is nutso, an evo-fundamentalist. Here read his blog-- notice that he does not allow comments...

Kanazawa is a Tolkien scholar.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Kanazawa is a Tolkien scholar.

Wow. Who knew? I always thought of him as the author of the book "Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters."

 

[Liar]

He thinks he knows what he's doing. The only problem is he has never run anything but his mouth and has no management or leadership skills.

I see this all the time from the hate-fest on the right: He's arrogant! He has no experience! He's a lousy leader! He can't run anything!

To this I have two questions:

1. As compared to whom? Pick a current politician you'd think woud do a better job. WITH what Obama has faced this past year, starting with an economy stuck in the latrines, and continuing with a minority in a trech war, sabotaging process for even non contentious issues on the hill just to make his job more difficult. The cloture statistics is about as clear about that as it can possibly get.

2. If he can't run anything, he can't be turning America into a Stalinist utopia, now can he? That would require a wee bit of strong-arming. You can't have it both ways. he's either a strong leader, and you might have a right to worry about policies you don't like, or he's a weak leader, and can't do al that much damage so you just have to bide your time til the next election.

 

[LaRocha]

Wow. Who knew? I always thought of him as the author of the book "Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters."

His articles such as: Genes for Monarchy? give him away. He's like the biggest Tolkien nerd in biology.

 

[Darkniciad]

I tend to avoid and dismiss most philosophy, psychology, and the like, because almost all of it looks like brain farts bottled and put up on shelves as trophies to me.

It's one thing to ponder the mysteries in life, or even to discuss your thoughts about it with others. The people who make it a career seem to trend toward flighty numbskulls with about as much useful insight as Ogre from Revenge of the Nerds wondering what it would be like if D-O-G really spelled "Cat"

But I digress. I've ranted quite enough here for a while *laugh*

 

[WRJames]

Again, the vaccine Lymerix did work. It is still used in Canada and Europe to prevent the dissemination of Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacteria that causes Lyme disease in humans and a variety of animals. The three main genospecies of Borrelia burgdorferi which are found in N America, Europe, Asia are all effectively combated by Lymerix. A vaccine is not a cure for Lyme disease, if you have Lyme disease or Polio you don't take a vaccine. Vaccination was developed to prevent disease, not treat disease[.

Don't patronize me. I know what a vaccine is. My children had no symptoms of Lyme before they took the vaccine, and they have since come down with Lyme. So don't tell me the vaccine works because my personal experience is that is does not.

If there exists a cancer that routinely goes into remission without human intervention I'd love to see the data. That's really a fantasy fiction saying that there are cancers that shouldn't be treated. Sure, many treatments for cancer have been hit and miss, probably more damage has been done with the greater variety of treatments to one individual. But in doing that damage many types of cancers are now manageable if not in the realm of curable(notably breast and prostate cancer.) Maybe you're also a believer in the Alive and Well campaign, these psychopaths that let their family members die because they deny a link between HIV and AIDS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive_&_Well_AIDS_Alternatives.

What? Anyone who dares to disagree with you must be some sort of radical nut case? Did you even bother to look at the link I gave you? This is a serious problem. As I said before, when it comes to your own body I hope you think twice before you let some doctor maim you.

Listen, A-theism (ἄθεος : against theism/deism/gods) Our language, the Greek language, already makes the assertion that atheism is a reaction to theism. Theism is a statement of comprehension, a statement of belief of fact. Atheism's only point is in undermining the ridiculous arguments that begin 'God exists, God exists for these reasons...' You know that God exists? Great. I know that you don't know that God exists, and I can prove it.

I think that might be an agnostic position, at best. In my understanding atheists go beyond that to be SURE that God does NOT exist. That's where "lack of belief" transforms itself into a belief of its own.

I'd be interested, though, in seeing what your "proof" would consist of.

 

[DeeZire]

Since this forum has no "thanks" function, I will quote your post instead.

Oh, and thanks! The haters need a little education now and then.

I see this all the time from the hate-fest on the right: He's arrogant! He has no experience! He's a lousy leader! He can't run anything!

To this I have two questions:

1. As compared to whom? Pick a current politician you'd think woud do a better job. WITH what Obama has faced this past year, starting with an economy stuck in the latrines, and continuing with a minority in a trech war, sabotaging process for even non contentious issues on the hill just to make his job more difficult. The cloture statistics is about as clear about that as it can possibly get.

2. If he can't run anything, he can't be turning America into a Stalinist utopia, now can he? That would require a wee bit of strong-arming. You can't have it both ways. he's either a strong leader, and you might have a right to worry about policies you don't like, or he's a weak leader, and can't do al that much damage so you just have to bide your time til the next election.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DEEZIRE prances to the tune of a different bicycle horn.

 

[LaRocha]

...
What? Anyone who dares to disagree with you must be some sort of radical nut case? Did you even bother to look at the link I gave you? This is a serious problem. As I said before, when it comes to your own body I hope you think twice before you let some doctor maim you.


I think that might be an agnostic position, at best. In my understanding atheists go beyond that to be SURE that God does NOT exist. That's where "lack of belief" transforms itself into a belief of its own.

I'd be interested, though, in seeing what your "proof" would consist of.

Everyone has seen that information on breast cancer. If twenty percent of early detected tumors might possibly go into remission, eighty percent don't. There's no way to predict which will go into remission, like I've said over and over, which you don't quite comprehend. There's no way to not treat cancer by routinely assuming this or that cancer will go into remission. You may put your wife and mother and auntie in danger by not getting them treated for breast cancer when a tumor is detected, but I sure won't.

We're done with the Lyme disease discussion as far as I'm concerned. Sorry your family is stricken with Lyme disease, but it really has no bearing on the almost universal effectiveness of the vaccine when it was used those few years in our country, and its current effectiveness in Canada and Europe.

You really don't listen. As I've said a number of times, YOU must put forth a theistic argument for an atheistic argument to occur, that's why atheism is only a reaction to theism. An atheist is only sure so far as the theist is unable to put forth any sound argument for their belief. Yes, an atheist has a belief regarding the beliefs of theists. The theist believes they know God exists, and the burden of proof is on the one positing existence.

The atheist reacts to the proof, undermines the unsound argument of the theist and is safe in believing there is no God based on lack of any sort of proof, evidence, argument for the existence of God. The unicorn argument isn't just some joke. If I posit that a unicorn exists you don't have to prove that it doesn't, you just have to undermine my argument. If I don't make an argument you've every right to be sure unicorns don't exist. If every statement someone made had to be disproved by non-believers there'd be no science or math. The easiest theistic ploy is in trying to trick the atheist into coming up with premises for theism by which they can merely say, "Nope, that's not a premise for God's existence, try again, because God exists." Try again.

 

[Dragonlipz]

I see this all the time from the hate-fest on the right: He's arrogant! He has no experience! He's a lousy leader! He can't run anything!

To this I have two questions:

1. As compared to whom? Pick a current politician you'd think woud do a better job. WITH what Obama has faced this past year, starting with an economy stuck in the latrines, and continuing with a minority in a trech war, sabotaging process for even non contentious issues on the hill just to make his job more difficult. The cloture statistics is about as clear about that as it can possibly get.

2. If he can't run anything, he can't be turning America into a Stalinist utopia, now can he? That would require a wee bit of strong-arming. You can't have it both ways. he's either a strong leader, and you might have a right to worry about policies you don't like, or he's a weak leader, and can't do al that much damage so you just have to bide your time til the next election.

Quit trying to confuse DP and the other RWA's with logic and facts. You make an excellent point: He's either an inept tool or a machiavellian usurper whose aim is to undermine this democracy. But, LIAR, you fail to understand that these RWA's have no need for logic or truth...
The voices they hear (FIXED NEWS, mostly) tell them all they need to know...

 

[xssve]

What's interesting to me is in the modern US our rightwingers have shifted away from Authoritarian submission, at least in the case of Doctors and scientists. There's a strong anti-intellectual strain in the right that hates us "eggheads" telling them what is correct and factually true, especially if it conflicts with one interpretation of a 4000 year old religious text.

Well, god is the ultimate authority, and conveniently, cannot be subpoenaed to testify against those who presume to speak for HIM.

 

[rgraham666]

An observation on why knowing stuff is bad in U.S. politics.

 

[xssve]

I am not right wing, not authoritarian, not a fundamentalist. But I will say that the scientific and medical establishment has inflicted a huge amount of bullshit on us.

Just as example -- the position of the IDSA on treating Lyme disease. Or the over diagnosis and treatment of many cancers that would clear themselves up on their own.

Or the Global Warmning scam.

Or eggs -- they were bad, now they are good?

If people are stating to doubt the scientific establishment, it is because it has fucked up.

People don't have the attention span for long explanations - I got the lowdown on eggs very early on, before it ever even hit the media from Earl Mindell's vitamin Bible - eggs are high in HDL, which means they are very good for you, what you want to avoid is LDL which plaques up your veins. Thing is, a lot depends entirely on how you cook it: hard boiled or poached, eggs are good - fried in bacon grease with a side of bacon or sausage, the resulting amounts of LDL completely negate the HDL in the eggs.

But it tastes so good.

Anyway, I'm not sure how that particular message go so skewed by the media, probably because to start with, very few people made the distinction between HDL and LDL, it was all just "Cholesterol" and Cholesterol is "bad".

Apparently such distinctions are just too complex for some to grasp, small wonder that even finer points rapidly devolve into binary mythemes.

It isn't the science that's bad, it's the media - "Global Warming" sounds like a good thing if you live in Alaska, not so good if you live in Arizona, but it's not like turning up the thermostat, if you don't understand the role ocean currents play in climate, particularly the North Atlantic Current, you don't understand weather to begin with.

What you see when you look out the window is the result of a process that started halfway across the planet - and thus it's unlikely you'll grasp the possible ramifications of raising overall temperatures even a few degrees, it's not just a case of turning our thermostat down a notch.

If you're going to oversimplify a fairly straightforward issue like Cholesterol to the point of confusion, there is little possibility of a rational discussion on such a complex phenomena as global weather patterns.

Other things can affect it yes, Solar activity, even tectonic shifts can alter terrain, and alter weather patterns - the weather patterns on the Western Slope are different from those on the Eastern, but we can't do anything about that.