Greater disgust response associated with the political right, re: gay marriage

[Jacobtm]

Because disgust is specifically associated with perceived violations of purity-related norms important to those on the right, disgust sensitivity should be especially associated with conservative attitudes on issues related to sexual purity...

Compared to people on the left, those on the right tended to report being more disgust sensitive.

The finding of a strong relationship between self-reported disgust sensitivity and attitudes toward gay marriage comports nicely with conventional wisdom that for some people opposition to homosexual rights derives from a sense that the very thought of homosexual sex is disgusting and raises the question of why some people would find this thought disgusting while many others do not.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0025552

The article itself links to a number of previous studies on the innate qualities that strongly correlate with certain political attitudes. Fascinating stuff.

[Link]

Greater disgust response associated with the political right, re: gay marriage

So strong survival instinct=anti-gay marriage

In a Darwinian way that actually makes sense.

You know some gay people oppose the work that is being done to find a genetic basis for homosexuality.  They fear if a "gay" gene is discovered people will start testing for it and aborting babies or perhaps giving them treatments to "cure" their gayness.  Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum you have to be careful with pursuing science.  You never know what it will uncover.

[Jacobtm]

Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum you have to be careful with pursuing science.  You never know what it will uncover.

Both truth and lies can be used for evil. Yet the search for true understanding remains righteous.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Considering that pursuing what seemed to him to be science has in the very recent past led Link to voice support for eugenic abortion, perhaps we should encourage and nurture this new development in his thinking.

[Jacobtm]

Considering that pursuing what seemed to him to be science has in the very recent past led Link to voice support for eugenic abortion, perhaps we should encourage and nurture this new development in his thinking.

Well, you can support eugenics with lies just as easily as truth. If you're the kinda monster who believes in killing off whole groups of people, then a little thing like truth or science won't sway you.

That's what principles are for. Life, Liberty, that jazz.

[Link]

Considering that pursuing what seemed to him to be science has in the very recent past led Link to voice support for eugenic abortion, perhaps we should encourage and nurture this new development in his thinking.

Take a break from breathing the rarefied air up there, and dismount your high horse.  Join the rest of us in the ditch.  The scientific community and the vast majority of Americans support eugenic abortion.  The fact that you are not aware of that does not make me a monster.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Considering that pursuing what seemed to him to be science has in the very recent past led Link to voice support for eugenic abortion, perhaps we should encourage and nurture this new development in his thinking.

Take a break from breathing the rarefied air up there, and dismount your high horse.  Join the rest of us in the ditch.  The scientific community and the vast majority of Americans support eugenic abortion.  The fact that you are not aware of that does not make me a monster.

Ah yes. Isn't morality by popular vote grand?

[Link]

Considering that pursuing what seemed to him to be science has in the very recent past led Link to voice support for eugenic abortion, perhaps we should encourage and nurture this new development in his thinking.

Take a break from breathing the rarefied air up there, and dismount your high horse.  Join the rest of us in the ditch.  The scientific community and the vast majority of Americans support eugenic abortion.  The fact that you are not aware of that does not make me a monster.

Ah yes. Isn't morality by popular vote grand?

No Nathan.  You made a statement that I came to an erroneous conclusion by following what only seemed to be science.



Obviously it is you who only seems to be following science as I have quite nicely illustrated.  Once the facts abandoned you the only thing you had left was to question my morality.  I commend Jacobtm on posting a link to a scientific paper.  Granted it's not published in the most prestigious journal and probably only barely meets the criteria for "peer reviewed." But at least it isn't a link to Fox News or an Op Ed in IBD.  You on the other hand have only posted distortions and misinformation that has been thoroughly debunked.  After that the only thing that was left to do is sling mud in the usual Altas Forum fashion.

When you wrote this...

Considering that pursuing what seemed to him to be science has in the very recent past led Link to voice support for eugenic abortion, perhaps we should encourage and nurture this new development in his thinking.

You wanted people to think about this...



Unfortunately for simpletons that don't like to think and only want slogans that they can have knee jerk reactions to the face of modern eugenic abortion looks more like this...



I guess you are one of those people that stands outside of abortion clinics and calls thirteen year old gang rape victims "baby killers."

If you have a point to make post your link and evidence.  If all you have to say is anyone that doesn't agree with you is immoral then we really don't have a jumping off point for much of a discussion.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No Nathan.  You made a statement that I came to an erroneous conclusion by following what only seemed to be science.



Obviously it is you who only seems to be following science as I have quite nicely illustrated.  Once the facts abandoned you the only thing you had left was to question my morality.  I commend Jacobtm on posting a link to a scientific paper.  Granted it's not published in the most prestigious journal and probably only barely meets the criteria for "peer reviewed." But at least it isn't a link to Fox News or an Op Ed in IBD.  You on the other hand have only posted distortions and misinformation that has been thoroughly debunked.  After that the only thing that was left to do is sling mud in the usual Altas Forum fashion.

I still don't understand the relevance of any of this to whether or not it's morally excusable to abort a pregnancy because the baby would be slow.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You wanted people to think about this...

[/quote]

I'm glad you have such a clear understanding of how I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, that isn't emotionally manipulative at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Has anybody ever told you that you're a horrible, sneering, self-satisfied moron?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The New York Times article that you linked to provides plenty of evidence against the idea that Down's Syndrome makes somebody unworthy of life absent any other factors.

[Insula Dei]

Link's post contains a lot of the rhetorical equivalent of genocide, it should be noted. Science never is a valid base for morality. Go read Max Weber versus the 'Kathedersozialisten', Philosophy 101 stuff, basically.

[Link]

Considering that pursuing what seemed to him to be science has in the very recent past led Link to voice support for eugenic abortion, perhaps we should encourage and nurture this new development in his thinking.

Take a break from breathing the rarefied air up there, and dismount your high horse.  Join the rest of us in the ditch.  The scientific community and the vast majority of Americans support eugenic abortion.  The fact that you are not aware of that does not make me a monster.

Ah yes. Isn't morality by popular vote grand?

No Nathan.  You made a statement that I came to an erroneous conclusion by following what only seemed to be science.



Obviously it is you who only seems to be following science as I have quite nicely illustrated. Once the facts abandoned you the only thing you had left was to question my morality.

I still don't understand the relevance of any of this to whether or not it's morally excusable to abort a pregnancy because the baby would be slow.

There is no relevance to the morality.  That's the point.  You accused me of only seeming to follow what I thought was science.  When I illustrated that my opinoin was informed by and in line with the guidelines laid out by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists you stopped talking about science and just harped on about morality.  I am right on the science and you are wrong.  End of story.  As far as morality...  well I can't link to morality.  I can't go into a lab and produce morality.  I can't get the United Nations, the Palastinians, and Isreal to come to a consenous opinion about morality.  If you are not informed about the scientific facts and are unable to carry on a conversation about science then there really isn't much we can accomplish here.  All that will be left is two people arguing about who is moral and who is immoral.

[Insula Dei]

Considering that pursuing what seemed to him to be science has in the very recent past led Link to voice support for eugenic abortion, perhaps we should encourage and nurture this new development in his thinking.

Take a break from breathing the rarefied air up there, and dismount your high horse.  Join the rest of us in the ditch.  The scientific community and the vast majority of Americans support eugenic abortion.  The fact that you are not aware of that does not make me a monster.

Ah yes. Isn't morality by popular vote grand?

No Nathan.  You made a statement that I came to an erroneous conclusion by following what only seemed to be science.



Obviously it is you who only seems to be following science as I have quite nicely illustrated. Once the facts abandoned you the only thing you had left was to question my morality.

I still don't understand the relevance of any of this to whether or not it's morally excusable to abort a pregnancy because the baby would be slow.

There is no relevance to the morality.  That's the point.  You accused me of only seeming to follow what I thought was science.  When I illustrated that my opinoin was informed by and in line with the guidelines laid out by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists you stopped talking about science and just harped on about morality.  I am right on the science and you are wrong.  End of story.  As far as morality...  well I can't link to morality.  I can't go into a lab and produce morality.  I can't get the United Nations, the Palastinians, and Isreal to come to a consenous opinion about morality.  If you are not informed about the scientific facts and are unable to carry on a conversation about science then there really isn't much we can accomplish here.  All that will be left is two people arguing about who is moral and who is immoral.

That is an hilariously inadequate evrsion of scientism you're paddling, dude. What scientifically provable reason do I have to not come to your house, kill the men, rape the women and sell the children into slavery?

[Link]

Link's post contains a lot of the rhetorical equivalent of genocide, it should be noted. Science never is a valid base for morality. Go read Max Weber versus the 'Kathedersozialisten', Philosophy 101 stuff, basically.

I did not come up with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines.

I have never had to make a decision about whether to have an abortion or not.  Neither has anyone else on this forum.  So most of the opinions on here one way or the other are just a bunch of hot air.  Let's see what happens when people at random are forced to make a decision regarding eugenic abortion....



Demonize me all you want.  I have zero effect on that statistic one way or another.  Calling me Hitler will not change reality.  All this talk about Link this and Link that is just a way of avoiding reality.  I am not some puppet master that controls the world.  I just report the facts.  If you don't like the facts demonizing me won't change them.

[Link]

What scientifically provable reason do I have to not come to your house, kill the men, rape the women and sell the children into slavery?

whoa.

[Link]

Link's post contains a lot of the rhetorical equivalent of genocide, it should be noted.

Indeed.  I'm out of control.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Link's post contains a lot of the rhetorical equivalent of genocide, it should be noted.

Indeed.  I'm out of control.

You sort of are, since you've made three successive non-substantive posts that fall victim to the same exact is-ought conflation you're trying to defend yourself against.

The ACOG guidelines don't recommend for or against abortion, they recommend screening. Idiot.

[Хahar 🤔]

Why does Link post so many images?

[Link]

The ACOG guidelines don't recommend for or against abortion, they recommend screening. Idiot.

This statement...



plus this outcome...



can only lead a rational person to one inevitable conclusion.  The fact that that conclusion doesn't line up with your moral code doesn't make me an idiot.

[Link]

Why does Link post so many images?

Why do we have to look at the irrelevant oversized GIFs in your signature plastered all over this forum?  Different strokes for different folks I guess.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

can only lead a rational person to one inevitable conclusion.

Yes, that's true. That inevitable conclusion being that there is a strong social pressure to abort foetuses with suspected Downs Syndrome. Which is not exactly the point that you're making... and is also, I suspect, not something that anyone here would actually deny (or even see the point in denying).

[Хahar 🤔]

Why does Link post so many images?

Why do we have to look at the irrelevant oversized GIFs in your signature plastered all over this forum?  Different strokes for different folks I guess.

There's only one GIF, and it's there because it amuses me. Turn off signatures if you don't like it.

But isn't taking screenshots of text, cropping it, and uploading it awfully tedious? It seems rather pointless.