Oh, to the contrary, been around the ol argumentation block a few times. I would suggest developing a thicker skin, don't go all paranoid about being condescended to, also develop better and more supportable arguments.You evidently know next to nothing about argumentation. I offer up a simple hypothesis: liberals tend to be more educated and travel more often. You disagree vehemently. I then offer up evidence from credible sources -- the PEW research polls and International Business Traveler -- to back my hypothesis. You answer that my evidence is garbage. You give no explanation as to why that evidence is garbage except to say that you think the "electoral college" is a "blunt instrument." You then offer absolutely zero evidence for any of your claims and absolutely zero evidence in contradiction of my evidence. You then close your post with a condescending multi-linguistic "understand?"
I'm not saying my evidence is definitive. I don't think it is. But it's light years ahead of any insights you've offered, which are none aside from your personal anecdotes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Very small claims, like my own, require much less. We're not in a court of law, we're just advancing ideas. Evidence is good. Lack of evidence, not so good. You don't seem to get that. You clearly have nothing substantive to say on the matter, so buzz off. You're not worth my attention any longer.
Oh, to the contrary, been around the ol argumentation block a few times. I would suggest developing a thicker skin, don't go all paranoid about being condescended to, also develop better and more supportable arguments.
Fact is there are all kinds of holes with your "evidence". Its just blue/red/purple state numbers, no actual breakdown by party affiliation, so you have no real solid identifying numbers. Then you have the whole fact that this is only one form of travel, international travel, and your original premise was only tied it to the more general term, "travel". Might just be that the red states folks travel more but only in country. Then you have the problems associated with many of those with low passport numbers being states not really having close access to borders, which those with close borders would get a lot more people who can actually use/need passports, then the fact that many of those high passport states are coastal states that have more airline traffic/international connections. Flying out to other countries becomes more expensive for those more distantly located from the international hubs, the fact that states that have more people with money does, indeed, allow for easier generally more expensive foreign travel, though does not preclude folks from traveling a lot within their state or to other, adjoining states...there are myriad factors. logical factors, that allow the states that show more passports currently to be the ones with that lead, but certainly does not necessarily mean they "travel" more...
Proves absolutely nothing based on any "evidence" you have provided. And if you do not realize that the way people voted in the last two presidential races, which states went which way, is a very blunt instrument in determining whether a person holding a passport has a D or R voting penchant, well, I cannot help your faulty, and easily swayed by nothing much of true substance, rational capacities... or lack thereof.
Sorry, in our aspect of the debate, you offered no Pew polls on the matter at all, you only offered two inconclusive articles with reasons to the contrary already profusely identified.Wrong on every count.
1) Red states/blue states are a good general indicator of party affiliation. Not perfect, but good enough for a general measure.
2) The International Business Traveler evidence was not exclusive to international travel. Only my second bit of evidence on passports was limited that way. So every objection you have to international travel applies only to the second piece I put out there, which I posted well after your vigorous (and frankly, stupid) objections. Also, the article on passports acknowledges every objection you raise. So it's clear your affirmation bias runs so deep that you're not even reading clearly.
I have a plenty thick skin. I just don't suffer idiots gladly. Still haven't seen a shred of evidence contesting my claims or supporting any of your whimsical utterances. As for "rational capacities" outweighing evidence? Well, you're holding no cards on either front.
Sorry, in our aspect of the debate, you offered no Pew polls on the matter at all, you only offered two inconclusive articles with reasons to the contrary already profusely identified.
First the IBT facade of reporting and then what appears, from the make up/bios of its editors and contributors at the Expeditioner travel site, to be a site on travel that is a bit left learning at the very minimum. Hardly find these sources very fact based or truly informative, just fluff that does not confirm my bias, but rather confirms yours.
And while your measures are "good enough" for your side perhaps. our side likes the whole thing to be a bit better nailed down, precise its called. My objections only appear stupid to you since you have no real answers, just platitudes and gripes. And its is flat out disingenuous to say that all my objections were acknowledged, much less quelled.
I imagine you avoid the mirror, lest your suffering would grow exponentially. Sorry. but the fraud of your assertions cannot be so easily avoided.
Does your hypothesis include the many staunch conservative billionaires that finance the Republican candidates and their oppressive policies? Men like the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and many, many others like them?
.
Here's evidence that democrats travel more often.
I cannot say anything about rich / wealthy people's political leanings in that we seldom discussed that as I was fixing their yachts, but I CAN tell you this with 100% certainty.
Almost 100% of all the very rich and very wealthy yacht owners I have dealt with have been some of the nicest people I have every run across.
This was in New England as well as Ft Lauderdale.
Many the time, I was ready to break for lunch, when they insisted I stay on board and dine with them in the salon.
One CEO made me a turkey sandwich as he was making one for himself. That was the very first time I had whole cranberry sauce on a turkey sandwich. Now it is the best way I like them.
Another time the owners wife was heading out to go shopping as I was sitting at the table talking to her husband. She kissed him goodbye, then turned and kissed my on the top of my head, as she left. Saying she did not want me to feel left out. :3oops:
Another time everything I touched got fixed on an investment banker's boat, so he kept giving me little annoying items that were broke, and I fixed them, one after another. He wrote me a $200 tip, then asked for me specifically each and every time and gave me that same tip when I left.
Good people.
My theory is that when they are on their yacht, they are relaxing and enjoying the fruits of their labors, and it puts them in a happy state of mind.
The very few, and very rare pricks I met were those that had go fast power boats under 25 feet. You know the kind. The same type guy that wears all kinds of gold chains and is new money, and it goes right to his head. Their go fast power boat is just part of their uniform.
That maybe could be considered a stepping stool to evidence. This simplistic device only breaks down travel by the very blunt instrument of electoral college assignation of states into red/blue/purple without any real identifiers as to which specific ideology these individual traveling folks actually believe...
Besides which, if you read closely, I stated they often start their journeys more liberal... and as their eyes adjust to the real, pragmatic world, they also adjust to being less idealistic and more realistic in their ideas of how the world truly works.
Entiendes? Capiche'? Understand?
So what? We're not in a court of law. Do you have evidence that conservatives are more likely to travel, or that there is no correlation? If so, let's see it. Otherwise, give it up, and cool it with the condescending crap.
No.I'm forced to conclude that you're incapable of reading. You claim that I never cited Pew Poll research. Have a look again at the first piece of evidence I cited that notes higher education levels among liberals. If you're capable, look again to see where the data originates. Surprise, surprise -- PEW research.
Yes, the article on passports anticipated every objection you have. I don't think your objections are entirely off the mark, and I don't think I've proven beyond all reasonable doubt that liberals travel more. It's just that some evidence -- imperfect as it is -- suggests that. You're too dismissive of it, and you're setting the bar too high, especially in light of your not providing any reputable external sources yourself.
By the way, we disagreed earlier on which came first. I argued that people become liberal after they travel. You argued that liberally-minded people just tend to travel more. Well, there's strong research by one of my favorite psychologists, Jon Haidt, that indicates liberals tend to seek novelty. I think that weighs heavily in favor of your interpretation of the data.
Oh, and I love the mirror, baby. :thanks
His wisdom stands the test of time, especially in this regard... as proven here on DP every day, not all people become so enlightened, however.Ah, shades of the fake Churchill quote that people still puke up as gospel.
Hey, not my fault that having the better arguments can make our adversarial discussions seem, to those on the receiving end, like I have an attitude of patronizing superiority and disdain...Yeah, asking Gaugingcatenate to stop being condescending is like telling a fish to stop swimming.
Hey, not my fault that having the better arguments can make our adversarial discussions seem, to those on the receiving end, like I have an attitude of patronizing superiority and disdain...
Well Papa, I have taught debate, history and economics and, as with your inability to ascertain correct age or lineage, you've thus far proven very few positive abilities at argumentation. Much less the scary thought that you might have been coaching and judging such. Wherein you lack not only the ability but the understanding of what you are doing when trying to 1. Assert a point 2. Support that point with proper "evidence" 3. Align your facts properly and truthfully [ i.e., the Pew source that, although you attempted to tie it to our segment of the discussion, it had absolutely NO BEARING, so I called you on it---busted!! ].Son, I've been coaching and judging formal debate at the high school and college level for decades now. And a debater you aren't. You drop arguments, misrepresent evidence, incorrectly weigh evidence, selectively misread arguments, contradict your conclusions from one post to another, and can't seem to follow the flow to save your life. You think a New York Times opinion piece weighs heavier than meta-studies conducted by one of the most respected social psychologists in the country, even when I generously supplied the psychological study in favor of your argument. I think that says it all.
There's nothing productive going on here in engaging with you. We've also derailed the thread. So I'm signing off.
Well Papa, I have taught debate, history and economics and, as with your inability to ascertain correct age or lineage, you've thus far proven very few positive abilities at argumentation. Much less the scary thought that you might have been coaching and judging such. Wherein you lack not only the ability but the understanding of what you are doing when trying to 1. Assert a point 2. Support that point with proper "evidence" 3. Align your facts properly and truthfully [ i.e., the Pew source that, although you attempted to tie it to our segment of the discussion, it had absolutely NO BEARING, so I called you on it---busted!! ].
Add to that the not insignificant fact that you are overly sensitive to being questioned, to having the fragility of your feeble points singled out time after time again as well as not having a cool, calm and collected demeanor required of a decent verbal pugilist. The weakness of your abilities is accented with your constant barrage of attacks on other than on topic, the ad homs...
Oh, and I am quite sure in your overly educated, lacking much if any common sense world, that Haidt is an icon to be worshiped. With the fact that psychologist themselves cannot reproduce but 39% of their own studies, well, perhaps you should reevaluate who and how venerate, eh? https://www.theguardian.com/science...-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results And, since you are not really, please do not try to do me any favors ins supposing what is good for my arguments, you are as poor at that as with all your other declarations.
Good luck, but better to have developed some skills...
Sorry, but...You spew the Guardian and the New York Times editorials. I used Pew research and a Scientific American article summarizing meta-studies in social psychology.
Yep, that says it all.
Sorry, but...
No, what verify-ably says it all is that you have hardly a clue as to what you are doing regarding argumentation, not proven virtually but by a real person, me, earlier... the NYT article referenced was to ameliorate any qualms that I would have to use only conservative [see my lean] websites to prove my points. Secondly, the guardian article uses as its source Science Magazine, part of the The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) organization which as Wikipedia describes it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Science
"...is an American international non-profit organization with the stated goals of promoting cooperation among scientists, defending scientific freedom, encouraging scientific responsibility, and supporting scientific education and science outreach for the betterment of all humanity. It is the world's largest general scientific society, with 126,995 individual and institutional members at the end of 2008, and is the publisher of the well-known scientific journal Science, which has a weekly circulation of 138,549."
The sources I quote are not from 1. those of my own specific political leaning and 2. are well respected organizations even though I, myself, often detest the NYT. But what you cannot say is that the NYT is, at its core, advocating for conservatism... and please, be my guest, take their sources and destroy them, if you can.
You used Pew earlier falsely, as a fabrication to attempt to assist your advocacy. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but since you are continuing to use it even when being called on it, then we all know now that it was not a legitimate oversight but intentional, that its a outright prevarication [lie].
Credibility is the coin of the realm in debate, and you are left coinless.
You mistake blowhard verbosity for solid content. Remarkable that you think one Science article renders the entire field of psychology moot. There's your conservative science denial showing its ugly head, even if you mask it with liberal editorial sources. If you would have worked past your affirmation bias further down your Google search just 3 entries, you would have seen this Nature piece that shows replication is much more complex than you surmise.
I said liberals generally have more education, and the Pew research backs that. Simple.
Whoops, you revealed your hand. Any debater knows that credibility means nothing in a round. Solid cards and a good handling of the flow are everything. You haven't "taught" debate a moment in your life, fraud.