Chat Room

"Liberal", or "Conservative"?

What "liberals" so aptly demonstrate by such a statement is that there is not a difference in "ideology" or "principle" here.  It is not a liberal versus conservative question, nor Democrat versus Republican, nor even feminism versus fatherhood--it is a question of fact versus emotion.

When so many Americans believe that "a randomly selected subset of a population is independent of that population", they demonstrate that they can't accept facts simply because they are incapable of verifying facts on their own.

The TIMSS data on probability and statistics shows us why they are unable to verify facts.   An average of 52.1% of American boys correctly answered 8 questions on probability and statistics.  But that means that almost half of American boys (or 47.9%) answered it incorrectly, which is a LARGE percent of males in this country who don't have the tools necessary to separate political rhetoric from fact.  These are really simple questions:  70% of French boys answered these 8 questions correctly.  68% of Danish boys did too, and 62% of Canadian boys, and 57% of Austrian boys, and 70% of Australian boys.  Japan and Korea and those other Asian nations whose 8th graders scored so much higher than ours didn't participate in the 12th grade tests, but I know from direct experience with their curricula that close to 100% of them would have gotten these 8 simple questions correct.

Half of our male population is sufficiently math impaired that this is a disability that's even worse than not being able to read and write.  But our girls are even worse off, because only a quarter of them have the math skills possessed by more than a half of the girls in Germany, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland.

Two thirds of our students couldn't answer a question which was a no brainer for more almost two thirds of the students in most countries which took TIMSS.

Politicians have taken advantage of the fact people with such impaired intellects are easy to lie to, and  and fed us unbelievable political rhetoric which most people in the rest of the world can easily see through.  "Liberals" don't have a different "philosophy"--they are merely lacking some really important information which a good math education would have easily provided them.   If a politician says:

     "Outlawing guns within 1,000 feet of a school will reduce crime."

they must accept this at face value, because they have no way to assess the validity of the claim. Their entire life's "philosophy" is decided by the politician with the slickest haircut.  If Clinton says to them:

     "Congress should take this opportunity to outlaw guns so we can
     prevent future school shootings."

they are utterly incapable of seeing through the political rhetoric--and the DANGER of following it.

But a person with a meager understanding of probability and statistics can easily verify for himself what is wrong with that statement.  He can easily separate fact from political rhetoric and vote for the Constitutional rights we have been handed by our Forefathers. He can do a casual analysis of what he knows about the Littleton school shooting and know immediately that adding one more gun control law to our existing 20,000 unconstitutional gun control laws wouldn't have changed the outcome at Littleton one bit.   He could assess the data to see that more gun control is positively associated with increasing crime rates.  He can instantly visualize how such a law would affect only law-abiding citizens while not preventing an ounce guns from getting into the hands of those planning crimes. He can calculate the probability of such laws reducing the number of guns in the country from 250,000,000 to 249,999,999 and conclude that it is impossible that a law could make that happen.

He would know that curtailing one supply channel for guns to a group would only open up and even encourage that group to create even more supply channels and buy even more guns.   He would wonder how government, as inept as it is, could determine today which of the 20,000 of the owners of our 250,000,000 guns is going to kill somebody with it over the next year, and which of the other 249,980,000 are NOT going to. Or how many of those 250 million guns will be used to protect life, limb, and property from criminals. Or how many more robberies or thefts or murders or rapes would be committed by those 3 million criminals who are already arrested for those crimes each year if their likelihood of being shot during the commission of their crimes were to be reduced by just 5%.  Of if this is the same slippery slope that unarmed citizens slid down when Hitler killed 8 million of his fellow (unarmed) German citizens, or Stalin killed 20 million of his fellow (unarmed) Russian citizens, or when Mao Tse Tung killed 38 million of his fellow (unarmed) Chinese citizens, or when Pol Pot killed 2.5 million of his fellow (unarmed) Cambodian citizens, or when Yayha Khan killed 1.5 million of his fellow (unarmed) Pakistani citizens.

He would know that the "gun control" rhetoric was designed solely to distract us from the root problem--feminism.

He might suspect that a government which has already killed 36 million of its babies, in direct contravention to the religion of that country, a country where two thirds of the population disagrees, a population half of which view abortion as outright murder, might have a similar disrespect for his life if he were not armed, and if his government arrived at his doorstep as well-armed as it arrived at Waco.

"liberals", "democrats", "feminists", "mediots" [read: those on the "left"--the left side of the US bell curve, the bell curve made up of citizens of whom less than 3% were able to answer a math question which half of Israeli and French and Greeks answered correctly] don't possess any magic elixir.   Their "difference of opinion" isn't based on sound reasoning, the rule of law, Constitutional principles, insight, proven and time tested philolophies, superior intellect, Godly values, morality, spirituality, nor even an appreciation for the good things that men do.  It is based on emotionalism, rooted squarely on ignorance; coupled with arrogance which knows no bounds, the most pessimistic view of the spirit and intent of the Constitution and the good things men do, a dangerous and undeserved respect for government control, and a mentality worse than that which created Bolshevism.

Thank God the House of Representatives didn't listen to the blind dumb feminist whines, and threw their screed about "gun control" out the front door.

And that they do respect the Ten Commandments.

Listen up, Congress!