Originally Posted By cape cod joe How do you know so much about the Vineyard Tom? Have you been to those Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry bashes that they have every summer? Isn't that a generalization?> the Mass plate thing? I'm not going to argue but I thought it was? As Dennis Miller always says, "I could be wrong?"
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I don't think it's a generalization when you are reporting on an actual, specific number like that. A generalization would be, "All of the cars going to the Vineyard have Massachusetts plates" without having actually counted them or observed it in some way. But this study is saying of this particular group those that showed certain traits as children were more likely to be conservative as adults than those who didn't show that traits. And when the study says more likely, it is saying that a higher percentage of children with these particular traits wound up as conservative than children who did not have these traits. It doesn't say that the children in the group that had the traits WERE going to be conservative, just that more of them were than were not.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Got it! Thanks Tom! You guys do keep me hanging on by my intellectual fingernails. I always grow them long before going into to WE Tom --------Please tell me---what do you do for a living? rocket scientist? seriously?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe 14--RT--That last sentence is a tough indictment and isn't that a generalization?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<14--RT--That last sentence is a tough indictment and isn't that a generalization?>> I truly don't think so and (in my opinion) most conservatives would be PROUD of their scorn for situational ethics. The conservative reaction in the Schaivo case was a pretty good example of that. It may be a generalization for Republicans, but I think it is pretty on target for CONSERVATIVES (there is a difference).
Originally Posted By woody >>Without getting in to the whole whiny thing, I think it is very fair to say that conservatives tend to be more rigid and absolute in their views. Their abhorrence of situational ethics is a good example of that.<< I disagree. It really depends on the issue at hand. If you dislike traditional values and strict gender roles, you may get tagged as a Conservative. If you believe in absolute abortion rights and against gun ownership, you're a liberal. To liberals, their supposed flexibility is about the breaking of the status quo. Otherwise, they would not perceive themselves to be progressive.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Whether or not I was liberal or conservative, I would be hard pressed to draw much from a study based on 95 individuals in a single community. If anything, I feel this "study" says more about Berkeley than the political choices of individuals, based on their childhood character. And, may I say, the author's choice of language is decidedly loaded. If I were interested in making these results appear more favorable for conservatives, it would be just as easy to state it in these terms: "Remember the vocal, sensitive kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher for reassurance and nurturing? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative... In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality... A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The sensitive kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into upright young adults who hewed closely to normal gender roles and were uncomfortable with moral ambiguity. The aggressive kids turned out liberal and still lacked structure, turning into bright but odd adults with no clear focus. The girls were still aggressive and strident, but the young men tended to turn a little more self absorbed and withdrawn." Is this an unfair assessment of the "findings." Well of course it is...
Originally Posted By friendofdd Since situational ethics has been mentioned, this encyclopedia definition may show the difference between liberal and conservative views on that matter. Liberals seem to be for it and conservatives against. How do you prove which side is right? And if one side seems aggressive about it's view, may the other side whine? <a href="http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Situational_ethics" target="_blank">http://www.reference.com/brows e/wiki/Situational_ethics</a> Situational ethics refers to a particular view of ethics, in which absolute standards are considered less important than the requirements of a particular situation. The standards used may, therefore, vary from one situation to another, and may even contradict one another. This view of ethics is similar to moral relativism, and is contradictory to moral universalism, and moral absolutism. The term situational ethics has been broadened to include numerous situations in which a code of ethics is designed to suit the needs of the situation. The original situational ethics theory was developed by Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopal priest, in the 1960s. Based on the concept that the only thing with intrinsic value is Love (specifically agape), Fletcher advocated a number of controversial courses of action. Opponents are usually moral universalists who view situational ethics, in its purest sense, as inherently contradictory, and argue that the very term "situational ethics" is an oxymoron. They argue that ethics and morality are fundamental and cannot be based on practical, functional, or ethno-centric values; therefore, ethics must be based on something more persistent than one group's assessment of their current situation. Situated ethics is an entirely different theory in which it is the actual physical, geographical, ecological and infrastructural state one is in, determines ones actions or range of actions - green economics is at least partially based on that view. It, too, is criticized for lack of a single geographically-neutral point of view from which to apply standards of or by an authority. Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia © 2001-2006 Wikipedia contributors (Disclaimer) This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. View this article at Wikipedia.org - Edit this article at Wikipedia.org - Donate to the Wikimedia Foundation
Originally Posted By friendofdd BTW, Doug, that was an interesting way to restate the article without distorting the few facts it contains.
Originally Posted By woody Situational ethics is moral relativism. Same thing, different name. Conservative are correct to reject it, but that doesn't mean conservatives, in general, aren't guilty of commiting relativism of their own. It's really an issue of accountability and the stating of principles. Liberals are guilty of fudging the issue to win political points and achieve policy objectives. They also enjoy relativism to ensure cultural objectives are met. I believe it is worse to ignore or discount the ethical or moral problem just because it isn't convenient or trendy.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Situational ethics is moral relativism. Same thing, different name.<< Uh huh. Thus saith the pro-war, pro-death penalty "pro-lifer."
