<![CDATA[Forums - All Forums]]> http://nomoon.org/forum/ Wed, 08 Apr 2026 10:36:16 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Any other RealClearPolitics readers out there?]]> http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=20 Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:15:14 +0000 http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=20 RealClearPolitics website? I love seeing the conflicting editorial headlines next to each other. It's also easy to spot editorial spinsters working hard as each political topic emerges. For example, a conservative writer might had an article titled "Republican on the Right Track with the Whatever Issues." Right below this listing, a liberal writer might have an article "Republicans On the Wrong Track with the Whatever Issue." It's almost comical sometimes.]]> RealClearPolitics website? I love seeing the conflicting editorial headlines next to each other. It's also easy to spot editorial spinsters working hard as each political topic emerges. For example, a conservative writer might had an article titled "Republican on the Right Track with the Whatever Issues." Right below this listing, a liberal writer might have an article "Republicans On the Wrong Track with the Whatever Issue." It's almost comical sometimes.]]> <![CDATA[Are the presidential polls skewed?]]> http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=15 Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:16:06 +0000 http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=15
Obviously, there is some guess work in predicting the demographic turnout of likely voters, but one can make some reasonable estimates and boundary conditions based on previous elections. This link states that Rasmussen says that the US is made up of 35.4% Republicans, 34.0% Democrats, and 30.5% Independents (I suppose all other parties are counted as Independents). I would have expected Democrats and Republicans to be roughly equal, so this sounds plausible.

I’ve heard allegations that many pollsters are using the assumption that the next election’s turnout will be the same as 2008 turnout, though currently party enthusiasm suggest otherwise, and that basing polling results on this would produce results overly favorable to Obama. Dick Morris is one person who agrees with this analysis. I’ve heard some Democratic pundits defend the polling sampling, but I didn’t’ understand their argument, and I haven’t yet found a online explanation.

What difference does it make?

If we look at a recent (10/13/12) Washington Post poll, where Obama has a 3 point lead over Romney, we see the following weighting (at the bottom of the link):

Democrat: 35%
Republican: 26%
Independent: 33%

This gives the Democrats at +9 point advantage based on turnout. If the "correct" weighting should have be a +1 advantage for Republicans, should the corrected results show a +7 point lead for Romney? Surely, I'm over simplifying something?

I found a website http://www.unskewedpolls.com/ that claims to show unskewed results for various polls and the results are much more favorable for Romney than the published results.

Any thoughts on this subject?]]>
Obviously, there is some guess work in predicting the demographic turnout of likely voters, but one can make some reasonable estimates and boundary conditions based on previous elections. This link states that Rasmussen says that the US is made up of 35.4% Republicans, 34.0% Democrats, and 30.5% Independents (I suppose all other parties are counted as Independents). I would have expected Democrats and Republicans to be roughly equal, so this sounds plausible.

I’ve heard allegations that many pollsters are using the assumption that the next election’s turnout will be the same as 2008 turnout, though currently party enthusiasm suggest otherwise, and that basing polling results on this would produce results overly favorable to Obama. Dick Morris is one person who agrees with this analysis. I’ve heard some Democratic pundits defend the polling sampling, but I didn’t’ understand their argument, and I haven’t yet found a online explanation.

What difference does it make?

If we look at a recent (10/13/12) Washington Post poll, where Obama has a 3 point lead over Romney, we see the following weighting (at the bottom of the link):

Democrat: 35%
Republican: 26%
Independent: 33%

This gives the Democrats at +9 point advantage based on turnout. If the "correct" weighting should have be a +1 advantage for Republicans, should the corrected results show a +7 point lead for Romney? Surely, I'm over simplifying something?

I found a website http://www.unskewedpolls.com/ that claims to show unskewed results for various polls and the results are much more favorable for Romney than the published results.

Any thoughts on this subject?]]> <![CDATA[The Global Warming Debate]]> http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=14 Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:07:14 +0000 http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=14
I. Definitions
II. Strawman Delimas
III. A Summary of the Scientific Case for Catastrophic global warming.
IV A Rebuttal of Three Scientific arguments for Catastrophic global warming.

=============================================
I. Definitions:

Alarmists: Those who believe that man made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming. This term is not intended to be derogatory, but merely a descriptive term to distinguish people from those who believe that we do not need to be alarmed.

Skeptics: Those who are not convinced that man made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW): The “anthropogenic” term means “human,” or man-made global warming. However, I consider the term to be ambiguous, since I’ve seen it used to imply that man merely has a non-zero impact on global temperatures, as well as implying that man has a dominating influence on the climate change. It also can include man made influences which are not due to CO2, such as land use, deforestation, other gases, etc…


=============================================
II. Straw Man Dilemmas: Here are two snippets that I’ve seen used as reasons to cut CO2 emissions. I thought that it would be a good idea to get these out of the way first.

Strawman #1: It’s indisputable that global warming is real and is happening now. Therefore, we need to cut CO2 emissions.

Strawman #1 Rebuttal: Most believe that there has been some warming over the past 150 years. However, this does not say anything about the cause. Many believe that the Earth cooled as it went into the Little Ice Age about 500 hundred years ago, and then started warming about 150 years ago as we came out of it. The existence of warming over the past 100-150 years does not mean that man-made CO2 emissions are causing most of it.

Strawman #2: It’s indisputable that CO2 causes global warming. Therefore, we need to cut CO2 emissions.

Strawman #2 Rebuttal: All scientists acknowledge that CO2 absorbs infrared energy, and that all other things being equal, increasing CO2 levels is likely to increase global temperatures. However, there are several other known factors which are known to affect the climate. In order to show that CO2 emissions should be lower, it would need to be proven that expected CO2 levels are causing a significant part of the climate change beyond what would be expected from natural variation.

Both of these strawman issues above often lead to the flawed and sometimes leading question: Do you believe in global warming? Often, the questioner really means: “Do you believe that man-made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming?” In this case, I’d answer “no.” However, if the question is answered as it was asked, I’d have to say that “yes, there probably has been some warming over the past 150 years.” Problems occur when the questioner makes one assumption and the answerer makes another assumption about the question. For example, I’ve seen discussions where this question is answered by a skeptic who replies “no” and then the questioner ridicules the skeptic by stating something like “every respectable scientist believes in global warming”



=============================================
III. A Summary of the Scientific Case for Catastrophic global warming.

Items A, B, & C below are what I consider to be the main categories for the scientific case for catastrophic warming caused by man-made CO2 emissions. I give brief description below, and section IV will give quick rebuttals for each of these three categories.

A. Paleoclimate reconstructions which show almost 1000 years of stable temperatures followed by ~100 years of dramatic temperature increases which roughly coincide with increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.

B. Models which show that the recent warming could only be explained by increased levels of CO2. Natural variations have been studied, and their influence is too small to have this much impact.

C. Ice core data which shows a correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.



=============================================

IV. A Rebuttal of Three Scientific arguments for Catastrophic global warming.

A Quick Rebuttal of Paleoclimate Reconstructions: : The most famous of these is the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) hockey stick that was used in the report from the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). One of the key problems with this study is that the hockey stick result relies on a set of data made from bristlecone pines from the western part of the United States. Additionally, this study used a non-standard statistical method which gave inappropriately large weighing to this series. Also, many of the trees that he measured were “strip barked,” where at least some of the outer bark has died, which affects growth rates. The original researcher, Don Graybill, a dendrochronologist, who collected the data for this set of bristlecone pines, stated that tree ring measurements from these pines should not be used for temperature reconstructions.

If the bristlecone pines are removed from the data set, the hockey stick shape goes away. There have been a few attempts to show that other studies with different data asset have also replicated the MBH hockey stick, such as this spaghetti graph. However, many of these reconstructions have the same bristlecone series used in MBH, which dominates their results. Other reconstructions have dominating series with other data quality issues, and some have allegedly been cherry picked to give the desired results. Even if you believe that the dominating series are valid data, I think that it’s hard to argue that these results are robust if the hockey stick shape disappears if a single data series is removed.

Michael Mann, of the original MBH articles, more recently published a hockey stick shaped reconstruction in 2008 which did not use any tree ring measurements. However, the hockey stick shape relied on a single set of lake bed sediments (Tiljander). Other non-tree data was used in the study. However, if the Tiljander sediment measurements were removed, the hockey stick goes away. Again, this is hardly a robust result if the hockey stick shape goes away if a single data series is removed. Worse still, the “foot” of the hockey stick is from a period of time in which the original data collectors said cannot be used for temperature reconstructions because sediments were contaminated by upstream dredging. WORSE STILL, the sediment density data shows strong COOLING during this period, and not warming. Mann’s publication simply used an algorithm which places a negative calibration for the sediments in order to obtain the result that he wanted. Mann has vigorously defending the calibration technique and has sharply criticized those who claim that he has used his data “up side down.” In my opinion, the critics are correct, and Mann’s defense relies on the parsing of words. I have also read that Mann has attempted so show that his 2008 results are robust, but showing that the hockey stick shape remains even when the Tiljander sediment density measurements are removed, but that his analysis actually replaces the Tiljander measurements with a data series that contains Bristlecone pine data.

Rebuttal of the other arguments will come in a followup posting.]]>
I. Definitions
II. Strawman Delimas
III. A Summary of the Scientific Case for Catastrophic global warming.
IV A Rebuttal of Three Scientific arguments for Catastrophic global warming.

=============================================
I. Definitions:

Alarmists: Those who believe that man made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming. This term is not intended to be derogatory, but merely a descriptive term to distinguish people from those who believe that we do not need to be alarmed.

Skeptics: Those who are not convinced that man made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW): The “anthropogenic” term means “human,” or man-made global warming. However, I consider the term to be ambiguous, since I’ve seen it used to imply that man merely has a non-zero impact on global temperatures, as well as implying that man has a dominating influence on the climate change. It also can include man made influences which are not due to CO2, such as land use, deforestation, other gases, etc…


=============================================
II. Straw Man Dilemmas: Here are two snippets that I’ve seen used as reasons to cut CO2 emissions. I thought that it would be a good idea to get these out of the way first.

Strawman #1: It’s indisputable that global warming is real and is happening now. Therefore, we need to cut CO2 emissions.

Strawman #1 Rebuttal: Most believe that there has been some warming over the past 150 years. However, this does not say anything about the cause. Many believe that the Earth cooled as it went into the Little Ice Age about 500 hundred years ago, and then started warming about 150 years ago as we came out of it. The existence of warming over the past 100-150 years does not mean that man-made CO2 emissions are causing most of it.

Strawman #2: It’s indisputable that CO2 causes global warming. Therefore, we need to cut CO2 emissions.

Strawman #2 Rebuttal: All scientists acknowledge that CO2 absorbs infrared energy, and that all other things being equal, increasing CO2 levels is likely to increase global temperatures. However, there are several other known factors which are known to affect the climate. In order to show that CO2 emissions should be lower, it would need to be proven that expected CO2 levels are causing a significant part of the climate change beyond what would be expected from natural variation.

Both of these strawman issues above often lead to the flawed and sometimes leading question: Do you believe in global warming? Often, the questioner really means: “Do you believe that man-made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming?” In this case, I’d answer “no.” However, if the question is answered as it was asked, I’d have to say that “yes, there probably has been some warming over the past 150 years.” Problems occur when the questioner makes one assumption and the answerer makes another assumption about the question. For example, I’ve seen discussions where this question is answered by a skeptic who replies “no” and then the questioner ridicules the skeptic by stating something like “every respectable scientist believes in global warming”



=============================================
III. A Summary of the Scientific Case for Catastrophic global warming.

Items A, B, & C below are what I consider to be the main categories for the scientific case for catastrophic warming caused by man-made CO2 emissions. I give brief description below, and section IV will give quick rebuttals for each of these three categories.

A. Paleoclimate reconstructions which show almost 1000 years of stable temperatures followed by ~100 years of dramatic temperature increases which roughly coincide with increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.

B. Models which show that the recent warming could only be explained by increased levels of CO2. Natural variations have been studied, and their influence is too small to have this much impact.

C. Ice core data which shows a correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.



=============================================

IV. A Rebuttal of Three Scientific arguments for Catastrophic global warming.

A Quick Rebuttal of Paleoclimate Reconstructions: : The most famous of these is the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) hockey stick that was used in the report from the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). One of the key problems with this study is that the hockey stick result relies on a set of data made from bristlecone pines from the western part of the United States. Additionally, this study used a non-standard statistical method which gave inappropriately large weighing to this series. Also, many of the trees that he measured were “strip barked,” where at least some of the outer bark has died, which affects growth rates. The original researcher, Don Graybill, a dendrochronologist, who collected the data for this set of bristlecone pines, stated that tree ring measurements from these pines should not be used for temperature reconstructions.

If the bristlecone pines are removed from the data set, the hockey stick shape goes away. There have been a few attempts to show that other studies with different data asset have also replicated the MBH hockey stick, such as this spaghetti graph. However, many of these reconstructions have the same bristlecone series used in MBH, which dominates their results. Other reconstructions have dominating series with other data quality issues, and some have allegedly been cherry picked to give the desired results. Even if you believe that the dominating series are valid data, I think that it’s hard to argue that these results are robust if the hockey stick shape disappears if a single data series is removed.

Michael Mann, of the original MBH articles, more recently published a hockey stick shaped reconstruction in 2008 which did not use any tree ring measurements. However, the hockey stick shape relied on a single set of lake bed sediments (Tiljander). Other non-tree data was used in the study. However, if the Tiljander sediment measurements were removed, the hockey stick goes away. Again, this is hardly a robust result if the hockey stick shape goes away if a single data series is removed. Worse still, the “foot” of the hockey stick is from a period of time in which the original data collectors said cannot be used for temperature reconstructions because sediments were contaminated by upstream dredging. WORSE STILL, the sediment density data shows strong COOLING during this period, and not warming. Mann’s publication simply used an algorithm which places a negative calibration for the sediments in order to obtain the result that he wanted. Mann has vigorously defending the calibration technique and has sharply criticized those who claim that he has used his data “up side down.” In my opinion, the critics are correct, and Mann’s defense relies on the parsing of words. I have also read that Mann has attempted so show that his 2008 results are robust, but showing that the hockey stick shape remains even when the Tiljander sediment density measurements are removed, but that his analysis actually replaces the Tiljander measurements with a data series that contains Bristlecone pine data.

Rebuttal of the other arguments will come in a followup posting.]]> <![CDATA[A template for every awful political discussion you've ever witnessed on Facebook.]]> http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=13 Wed, 12 Sep 2012 01:16:08 +0000 http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=13
Someone posted this on Facebook, but I think that it’s relevant here. It’s funny, but surprisingly accurate for a variety of internet political exchanges. How many behaviors can you identify? So far, I’ve come up with the following:

  1. Teamism/Tribalism
  2. Ad hominem attack
  3. Confirmation bias
]]>
Someone posted this on Facebook, but I think that it’s relevant here. It’s funny, but surprisingly accurate for a variety of internet political exchanges. How many behaviors can you identify? So far, I’ve come up with the following:

  1. Teamism/Tribalism
  2. Ad hominem attack
  3. Confirmation bias
]]> <![CDATA["Silent Spring" & DDT Reexamined]]> http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=12 Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:32:27 +0000 http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=12
This week, there have been several editorials, both in support and critical of the book. One article, in Slate, titled "Rachel Carson Didn’t Kill Millions of Africans, How the 50-year-old campaign against Silent Spring still distorts environmental debates" supports Carson. I expected to see more support of the claims in the book, maybe some justification of the ban on DDT, or an explanation of why the ban didn’t matter. Instead, the first half of the article seemed to be largely ad hominem attacks. The second half of the book promoted the idea that Carson was not responsible for ban, which seems to agree with the idea that the ban was a bad thing.

Quote:Carson did not seek to end the use of pesticides—only their heedless overuse at a time when it was all but impossible to escape exposure to them

But it’s a stretch to see how the mood surrounding Silent Spring was the prime cause of DDT’s exit from the fight against malaria.

Rachel Carson's Deadly Fantasies, is critical article published at Forbes.com, that gives a quick overview. It mentions a fairly old 1992 article that was written by Entomologist, J. Gordon Edwards, which comments on specific pages of the book.

A few years ago, I stumbled across an article at JunkScience.com, "100 Things You Should Know about DDT," which gives a fairly comprehensive rebuttal of the claim made in “Silent Spring.” I just realized that this article was co-written by the same J. Gordon Edwards. Even if you aren’t a fan of the JunkScience.com website and it’s founder, Steve Milloy, I don’t think that this compilation of information can easily be ignored for someone who seriously wants to look into the DDT issue. Some of the things that I recall are:
  • DDT exposure to birds did not cause egg shell thinning in the controlled experiements.
  • Egg shell thinning correlated to drought conditions.
  • Some birds has thicker egg shells during higher exposure to DDT.

In understanding is that DDT itself is a fairly inert chemical. This can be good and bad. It's good in that this tends to make it less toxic to more animals. It can be bad in that it tends to break down slowly in the environment. It would seem that moderate use could be a good thing.]]>
This week, there have been several editorials, both in support and critical of the book. One article, in Slate, titled "Rachel Carson Didn’t Kill Millions of Africans, How the 50-year-old campaign against Silent Spring still distorts environmental debates" supports Carson. I expected to see more support of the claims in the book, maybe some justification of the ban on DDT, or an explanation of why the ban didn’t matter. Instead, the first half of the article seemed to be largely ad hominem attacks. The second half of the book promoted the idea that Carson was not responsible for ban, which seems to agree with the idea that the ban was a bad thing.

Quote:Carson did not seek to end the use of pesticides—only their heedless overuse at a time when it was all but impossible to escape exposure to them

But it’s a stretch to see how the mood surrounding Silent Spring was the prime cause of DDT’s exit from the fight against malaria.

Rachel Carson's Deadly Fantasies, is critical article published at Forbes.com, that gives a quick overview. It mentions a fairly old 1992 article that was written by Entomologist, J. Gordon Edwards, which comments on specific pages of the book.

A few years ago, I stumbled across an article at JunkScience.com, "100 Things You Should Know about DDT," which gives a fairly comprehensive rebuttal of the claim made in “Silent Spring.” I just realized that this article was co-written by the same J. Gordon Edwards. Even if you aren’t a fan of the JunkScience.com website and it’s founder, Steve Milloy, I don’t think that this compilation of information can easily be ignored for someone who seriously wants to look into the DDT issue. Some of the things that I recall are:
  • DDT exposure to birds did not cause egg shell thinning in the controlled experiements.
  • Egg shell thinning correlated to drought conditions.
  • Some birds has thicker egg shells during higher exposure to DDT.

In understanding is that DDT itself is a fairly inert chemical. This can be good and bad. It's good in that this tends to make it less toxic to more animals. It can be bad in that it tends to break down slowly in the environment. It would seem that moderate use could be a good thing.]]> <![CDATA[Who is not a spammer? Post Here]]> http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=11 Mon, 03 Sep 2012 04:07:11 +0000 http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=11
I've had to deal with a couple of spammers so far, and I've noticed that there are a lot of registered users that haven't posted anything. I don't know whether these are people who may be joining the conversation, or whether I'm about to be mega spammed.

If you aren't a spammer, I'd welcome a post from you in this thread.Cool]]>
I've had to deal with a couple of spammers so far, and I've noticed that there are a lot of registered users that haven't posted anything. I don't know whether these are people who may be joining the conversation, or whether I'm about to be mega spammed.

If you aren't a spammer, I'd welcome a post from you in this thread.Cool]]> <![CDATA[Forum News]]> http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=10 Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:50:30 +0000 http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=10
I turned on the required Captcha field for registration today because of spam problems. I was hoping to avoid doing that, but I was getting about one spammer a day. I also saw a flurry or recently registered users that haven't posted, but there are other things about their registration that look suspicious.

Let me know if you know of any problems or suggestions.]]>
I turned on the required Captcha field for registration today because of spam problems. I was hoping to avoid doing that, but I was getting about one spammer a day. I also saw a flurry or recently registered users that haven't posted, but there are other things about their registration that look suspicious.

Let me know if you know of any problems or suggestions.]]> <![CDATA[Is there a Left/Right schism on Israel?]]> http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=7 Mon, 27 Aug 2012 02:29:50 +0000 http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=7 Left-Right schism on Israel? The other thread asked "why."

Do you agree that the Left/Liberals tends to side with the Palestinians, while the Right/Conservatives tend to side with Israel?]]> Left-Right schism on Israel? The other thread asked "why."

Do you agree that the Left/Liberals tends to side with the Palestinians, while the Right/Conservatives tend to side with Israel?]]> <![CDATA[Ryan vs Obama healthcare plans]]> http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=5 Thu, 23 Aug 2012 01:15:21 +0000 http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=5 Ryan’s commentary shown in this meeting with Obama set the stage for the debate. Some of the editorial attacks have been pretty harsh and almost comical on both sides. Factcheck.org seems fairly supportive of Ryan against some of his attackers. Do the Obama supporters have legitimate complaints, or are they participating in obfuscation?

More recently, I saw Wolf Blitzer’s uncomfortable interview with DNC chairman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I thought that Wolf had a legitimate point about Ryan’s plan not affecting Medicare coverage for people 55 years and older. Did the DNC chairman have a legitimate point that I didn’t comprehend, or was she trying to avoid the question without looking like she was avoiding the question?

I predict that some people will resort to playing "hide the pea under the thimble" if they are on the loosing end of the accounting debates. I'd like to stay information on these issues so that I can tell when one side tries to be sneaky.]]> Ryan’s commentary shown in this meeting with Obama set the stage for the debate. Some of the editorial attacks have been pretty harsh and almost comical on both sides. Factcheck.org seems fairly supportive of Ryan against some of his attackers. Do the Obama supporters have legitimate complaints, or are they participating in obfuscation?

More recently, I saw Wolf Blitzer’s uncomfortable interview with DNC chairman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I thought that Wolf had a legitimate point about Ryan’s plan not affecting Medicare coverage for people 55 years and older. Did the DNC chairman have a legitimate point that I didn’t comprehend, or was she trying to avoid the question without looking like she was avoiding the question?

I predict that some people will resort to playing "hide the pea under the thimble" if they are on the loosing end of the accounting debates. I'd like to stay information on these issues so that I can tell when one side tries to be sneaky.]]> <![CDATA[Beware of Ideological Teamism]]> http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4 Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:36:08 +0000 http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4 Beware of Ideological Teamism. It’s also on my blog here.

Teamism runs rampant in most online political discussions. For many, the other side isn’t just wrong, but they are actually bad, stupid people. In that regard, the dreaded uninformed swing voters are sometimes less corrupted.

I’ve had a follow up article in the works for a very long time which addresses the mechanics of how intelligent people manage to let their logic skew awry in order to accommodate their preexisting beliefs. Hopefully, I’ll be able to finish that one before too long.

I’d be interesting in hearing any comments on the topic of ideological teamism.]]> Beware of Ideological Teamism. It’s also on my blog here.

Teamism runs rampant in most online political discussions. For many, the other side isn’t just wrong, but they are actually bad, stupid people. In that regard, the dreaded uninformed swing voters are sometimes less corrupted.

I’ve had a follow up article in the works for a very long time which addresses the mechanics of how intelligent people manage to let their logic skew awry in order to accommodate their preexisting beliefs. Hopefully, I’ll be able to finish that one before too long.

I’d be interesting in hearing any comments on the topic of ideological teamism.]]> <![CDATA[The Jackass Free Experiment]]> http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=3 Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:14:59 +0000 http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=3
This is an experimental forum to see if it’s possible to have polite, non-combative political discussions, while remaining productive and entertaining. Will the restrictions prove to be too stifling? We’ll see. I'd love to hear your feedback.]]>
This is an experimental forum to see if it’s possible to have polite, non-combative political discussions, while remaining productive and entertaining. Will the restrictions prove to be too stifling? We’ll see. I'd love to hear your feedback.]]> <![CDATA[Why the Left-Right schism on Israel? (Pat Buchannan not withstanding)]]> http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=2 Mon, 20 Aug 2012 04:08:25 +0000 http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=2 <![CDATA[Left/Liberal vs Right/Conservative root cause]]> http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=1 Mon, 20 Aug 2012 04:07:14 +0000 http://nomoon.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=1 I’m also trying to come up with a definition that acceptable by both the Right and the Left. So far, the best that I’ve come up with is:

At the heart of the Left and Right philosophies is the fairness in our society and the role that our government should take in making it a fair society. The right tends to believe that an individual’s economic destiny and well being is largely determined by their own hard work and good decisions. The left tends to have less faith in the free market to ensure a proper amount of fairness, and prefers a larger role of government to ensure various aspects fairness in our society.

Does anyone have any improvements? Does that definition seem fair to both sides?]]> I’m also trying to come up with a definition that acceptable by both the Right and the Left. So far, the best that I’ve come up with is:

At the heart of the Left and Right philosophies is the fairness in our society and the role that our government should take in making it a fair society. The right tends to believe that an individual’s economic destiny and well being is largely determined by their own hard work and good decisions. The left tends to have less faith in the free market to ensure a proper amount of fairness, and prefers a larger role of government to ensure various aspects fairness in our society.

Does anyone have any improvements? Does that definition seem fair to both sides?]]>