🚀 go-pugleaf

Gary Strand <gary@titanic.cgd.ucar.edu> wrote in article
<uxuenbc4kwl.fsf@titanic.cgd.ucar.edu>...
> m > Me <none@urbusiness.com>
> gs> Gary Strand
> 
> m > But, I said one is ultimately responsible for one's actions.  
> 
> gs> Ergo, "political socialization" and skin color and Ronald Reagan and
annual
>     income are all irrelevant, and free will does exist.
> 
> m > Not at all.
> 
>   If your above statement is true, that the "ultimate" responsibility for
our
>   actions lies within ourselves, then nothing else matters - unless you
were
>   mistaken in your use of the word "ultimate". Which is it?

I'm saying that the context one exists in determines the possible ways one
has of reacting.
The context is in part determined by socialization.

Perhaps I should not have used ultimate.

See, if someone has been raised to accept a type of morality, one will
likely act in that moral way.  If one is taught they have "rights" which
they don't, rights being a high moral concept, they will act accordingly.  

If it turns out their socialization produces acts unacceptable to society,
the society will hold the individual ultimately responsible.  
That is how society defends and preserves itself from the monsters, even
though it may create them.

If you don't get this, Gary, then let's just move on.
 

> 
> m > I see you're still looking for simple answers to explain complex
human
>     beings.
> 
>   My answers aren't simple, nor are they designed to excuse, rationalize,
den-
>   igrate, and so on, like your "answers" do.

Back to the insults, Gary?  And you were doing so well.
Prove to me that my answers are designed to excuse, rationalize,
or denigrate their actions rather than to understand the underlying reason
for their similar actions, figuring a way to prevent them in the future.

> 
> m > It is through socialization that a person either does or does not
learn
>     right from wrong.
> 
>   I see. If I'm alone in a forest, and a lightning strike sets a tree on
fire,
>   and I touch it, I suffer great pain and learn that touching fire is
wrong.
>   And there's no society about at all. Amazing.
> 

If you reach out and touch a burning tree, it either means you never
learned what fire is and that it can harm you, or something else in your
socialization has taught you to do really dumb things.  If that's the case,
good old social Darwinism will take over and you will either learn the hard
way or we'll soon be building the future on top of your bones.

> m > For example, if one's socialization trains one to believe that all of
>     society's problems are the result of liberalism, then even though
>     conservatism has been the dominant policy in the country for 17 years
[...]
> 
>   There's that huge premise again. Prove it.
>  

You want numbers, pal, you got em.  

Results in Colorado, from 1960 to 1992:

1) Presidential elections--
	
	While the Republican percentage of the vote of the entire US averaged over
51%, Republicans averaged over 55% of the votes in Colorado.  Colorado
ranks 19th most Republican in terms of the vote for president for this
period.

2) Gubernatorial Elections--

	Since 1876, has had 21 Democrats and 17 Republican governors.  In the 10
races since 1958, Democrats have won seven times while Republicans have won
three times.

	Democrats averaged 55.1% of the vote compared to 44.9% for Republicans.

3) State Legislature

	In the 69 years from 1928 to 1997, Republicans have controlled both houses
of the legislature for 45 years.  Since 1976, Republicans have continuously
controlled both houses of the Colorado legislature, often by substantial
majorities.

Democrats have not controlled both houses since 1962.

4) U.S. Senate Elections.

	From 1968 to 1997, Republicans won five elections, gained one through
defection, and the Democrats won 5 (losing one through defection).

	Republicans averaged 52.7% of the vote during that period.

5)  U.S. House of Representatives

	This seems most susceptible to change.  From 1876 to 1994, 	29 Republicans
and 25 Democrats.


Now, going back to presidential voting, and this is going to blow you all
away, bursting a major, major bubble:

County Presidential Election Returns in Colorado Ranked by Average Vote
Margins 1960 - 1992.

Rank		Name		Margin		Rep%		Dem%
12		Boulder	1,860 R		52.*		47.2


Data Source:  
Cronin, T.E., and Loevy, R.D.  "Colorado Politics and Government."  (1993).
 University of Nebraska Press.  Lincoln.  (142 - 154).
ISBN 0-8032-6358-9

>   There are many hidden premises and definitions you have yet to
eludicate such
>   that this premise can even be stated. You've got a lot of work cut out
for
>   yourself if you want to show your premise is even true, forgetting your
ar-
>   gument that the riots were an end result of the premise.
> 

There it is, Gary.  Worked out, documented, proved.  Colorado is a
conservative state dominated by Republican politics, and has been since at
least 1960.  Even Boulder.


> m > The production line is the social society.  The widgets are the
people it
>     helps to create.  The machine is the political environment (nation,
state,
>     city, town, etc.).  The decision to be made is economic.
>     Decide.
> 
>   I am not a widget. To claim so is an insult to me and every other human
be-
>   ing. Take your notion of humans as cogs in a machine and stick it up
your
>   ass.
> -- 

But I thought that was the whole focus of objectivism?  To
turn human beings into objects and manipulate them to 
achieve one's own selfish ambitions?

The proofs are in place.  The statements are logical, sound, and supported.
 My work it done.  

Checkmate.