She's incapable of ever admitting a mistake. You're stuck in a tar pit. Good luck.
Study: Liberals Have Less Self-Control Because They Dont believe they have it..
- Thread starter Angel4Truth
- Start date
She's incapable of ever admitting a mistake. You're stuck in a tar pit. Good luck.
gcthomas
New member
You said you couldn't find the link to the paper, even though it was in the post on page 3, and I reproduced it for you.
I expected a grudging apology, but you come back with demands as if you have been right all along.
Did you still not find the link the paper even now? Can you not see that even the abstract bears little resemblance to the article title claim?
As I said right at the beginning: you should have started be reading the paper for yourself instead of believing a third hand partial rewriting of an interview.
Nasty as ever i see. Are you ever in a good mood?
OK. So in that case you are a bit like me. You are too intelligent to be put in such simple boxes as left, right, liberal, conservative, etc. I have a number of moral ideals, especially in terms of social structures, that would classify me as left leaning in political terms but in economic terms my views would be classified as right leaning. I also support women's rights because they obviously need such support, not because I am liberal. I guess you are the same. We just differ on the homosexual stuff. Perhaps, like me, you also tend to think of those (at least some) who like to classify themselves in this kind of way as somehow less than fully authentic human beings. It's like they are missing something by staying only in one very narrow sub-culture: left, right, con, lib,neo-con, pink, whatever. I feel the same way about transsexuals: if you define yourself merely as woman or merely as man, then you are missing out on a lot.
So no, you are not what I would call a liberal. And yes, I would suggest that self-discipline is generally a big issue for them. It's as I said because they don't see themselves or others as objective beings but subjective beings and there is therefore less of a desire to conform to external structures.
The graph on page 3 of the study indicates that the degree self-control exhibited by conservatives and liberals is virtually identical - the only difference based on their perception as to how freewill effects self-control.
"Angel4Truth" would have known this 144 posts back if she had actually taken the time to read the original study instead of trying to bluff her way based on the self-serving interpretation presented in The Christian Post.
To add insult to injury, she then proceeds to pass judgment on the "accountability" of liberals - based on conclusions that were never stated in the original study no-less.
Last edited:
gcthomas
New member
Comprehension issues. Thanks
I though you'd be flattered by the immitation. But as long as giving me a NegRep helps you to calm down from being caught out, carry on.
You never did apologise for the false accusation on supplying the link, dit you? Must hurt.
Don't hold your breath.
I didnt say you didnt post a link, i said you didnt compare and contrast the information with the op and show what you claimed is wrong, in fact what you actually did was say basically the same thing the op says.
I said i am not looking for information you claimed, its up to you to present that.
gcthomas
New member
Hmmm. Looks like you did say I hadn't provided a link to the study.
Your mistake. Get over yourself.
Where does that say link? You didn't post the information you objected to from it here, you posted a link.
No one should have to go looking for your claim.
You do know how to copy the relevant information, and quote from the op and contrast them dont you?
gcthomas
New member
You said 'the study', not 'the information'. What did you expect me to do, cut'n'paste the whole text of the paper?
More diversion.... Face it, nothing in the op is inaccurate. Which is why you are hard pressed to do what i asked. *back your claim*
Now again, untill you actually back your claim, nothing to discuss.
gcthomas
New member
How can we discuss a paper you have not read? There is no need for a compare and contrast, since it is blindingly obvious to those posters who have read it from my link that the third hand report in your OP was not an accurate account.
Read the paper you brought up in post one, and all will be revealed.
She's not going to.
Does ignore for you, mean to sit and take negative side shots at those you claim you are ignoring?