Liberal Bias Is Killing Social Science

[countryboy]

Sure, write off on your taxes all the money you gave for tithe and pat yourself on the back for it. Do you really think anyone gives a **** though?

The government doesn't allow much of a write off for giving to your church these days. You realize churches do a heck of a lot to help the poor, right? Maybe you don't give a **** about the poor, but I do.

 

[countryboy]

The objectivity portion. For instance, he's lumping tithe with charitable donations, and then claiming church-going Christian conservatives are more charitable.

What do you think most churches do with donations? Are you seriously that hate filled?

 

[whysoserious]

What do you think most churches do with donations? Are you seriously that hate filled?

That's hate filled? Churches do things, for sure, but they also have salaries to pay, housing for the pastor, events, etc.

You seem to have gotten awfully defensive about it all of the sudden.

 

[countryboy]

That's hate filled? Churches do things, for sure, but they also have salaries to pay, housing for the pastor, events, etc.

You seem to have gotten awfully defensive about it all of the sudden.

So what. People who devote themselves full time to helping others shouldn't be compensated? Pastors gotta eat too.

 

[Kobie]

So what. People who devote themselves full time to helping others shouldn't be compensated? Pastors gotta eat too.

Nobody's claiming that they shouldn't. Step away from the strawman.

It's a TAD disingenuous for tithing, which largely goes to cover a church's operating costs, counting as a "charitable donation."

 

[whysoserious]

So what. People who devote themselves full time to helping others shouldn't be compensated? Pastors gotta eat too.

You love straw men, eh? I never said that. I will say this, though:

I bet if your conservative writer friend who really thinks he and his buddies are so compassionate subtracted church donations from their "charitable contributions" that number wouldn't be so impressive.

 

[Jack Hays]

So your argument against climate change is that you found a climatologist who agrees with the science, but isn't a fan of groupthink (who is?).

Ok.

You claimed there is no debate. i cited someone who thinks that claim is unhealthy. I can cite dissenting scientists if you like.

 

[whysoserious]

Nobody's claiming that they shouldn't. Step away from the strawman.

It's a TAD disingenuous for tithing, which largely goes to cover a church's operating costs, counting as a "charitable donation."

Wow, you beat me to pointing out his giant straw man. Touche, sir.

 

[countryboy]

Nobody's claiming that they shouldn't. Step away from the strawman.

It's a TAD disingenuous for tithing, which largely goes to cover a church's operating costs, counting as a "charitable donation."

Do you have evidence to demonstrate that most of a church's donations "goes to cover a church's operating costs"? Because that's certainly not true of any church I have been a member of.

 

[Kobie]

Do you have evidence to demonstrate that most of a church's donations "goes to cover a church's operating costs"? Because that's certainly not true of any church I have been a member of.

Offhand, no.

 

[countryboy]

You love straw men, eh? I never said that. I will say this, though:

I bet if your conservative writer friend who really thinks he and his buddies are so compassionate subtracted church donations from their "charitable contributions" that number wouldn't be so impressive.

Well then prove him wrong. Don't just say, "I bet.....". BTW, I'm not a great fan of George Will, and he isn't the only one who has run the numbers. I know libs hate facts that run counter to their world view, but facts are facts.

 

[countryboy]

Offhand, no.

I appreciate your candor. It is a common misconception.

 

[whysoserious]

You claimed there is no debate. i cited someone who thinks that claim is unhealthy. I can cite dissenting scientists if you like.

You know what, I'd welcome that if it were healthy debate. You know, two sides presenting valid scientific research with an open mind. That's not the type of debate climate-change deniers are into though. The argument generally boils down to:

"OMG it's not even that hot right now, it snowed a lot in October which is really weird and cold, warming has plateaued for the past decade, and the Earth always heats and cools naturally!"

The first two are a different subject, the 3rd somehow ignores the 4th point, and the 4th point only works if that wasn't already thought of/explained already. So what kind of debate do you want to have, because if you want it to be a real debate, then I suggest you write a peer-reviewed paper that shows the current climate is natural.

 

[Jack Hays]

You know what, I'd welcome that if it were healthy debate. You know, two sides presenting valid scientific research with an open mind. That's not the type of debate climate-change deniers are into though. The argument generally boils down to:

"OMG it's not even that hot right now, it snowed a lot in October which is really weird and cold, warming has plateaued for the past decade, and the Earth always heats and cools naturally!"

The first two are a different subject, the 3rd somehow ignores the 4th point, and the 4th point only works if that wasn't already thought of/explained already. So what kind of debate do you want to have, because if you want it to be a real debate, then I suggest you write a peer-reviewed paper that shows the current climate is natural.

Check out the work of Henrik Svensmark, among others.

 

[Jack Hays]

So affirmative action for conservatives.

Diversity improves performance.

 

[countryboy]

Wow, you beat me to pointing out his giant straw man. Touche, sir.

How is it a straw man? You are the one who brought it up. :roll:

 

[whysoserious]

Well then prove him wrong. Don't just say, "I bet.....". BTW, I'm not a great fan of George Will, and he isn't the only one who has run the numbers. I know libs hate facts that run counter to their world view, but facts are facts.

Here's answer to most of your questions. Apparently MIT took a look at this whole idea and come up with this:

Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals? - LA Times

First, what was considered conservative and liberal was not clear. Some of this must have been wrong, MIT concluded, because conservatives tend to be richer, but in the Brooks study, liberals were richer. Liberals tended to give more to secular organizations, while conservatives tended to give more to their churches. To answer one of your questions directly:

The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.

And here's a great example of that:

An extreme case may have been that of Mitt Romney, whose tax disclosures during his 2012 presidential campaign indicated that he gave a higher percentage of his income away than his Democratic opponent, President Obama, 29.4% to 21.8%. Of course he was richer, so he gave away a lot more dollars. But fully 80% of Romney's donations went to the Mormon church; and a large further chunk went to a family foundation that also funneled much of it to the church.

Almost all of Romney's donations somehow found their way to the church - of which only a max 25% actually go to charity (and a subset of that to the poor). Meanwhile, Obama gives to mostly secular orgs:

The Obamas' contribution mostly went to humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross and the United Negro College Fund. In 2011 there weren't any general church donations, though $5,000 was listed to the Sidwell Friends School, which educates the Obama daughters.

And to answer your final question:

The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income."

Kind of ****s all over your simple world-view narrative, eh?

 

[whysoserious]

How is it a straw man? You are the one who brought it up. :roll:

You're taking my argument and changing the words and ideas so that it is something you can argue against. It's a basic logical fallacy, and you use it very well.

 

[whysoserious]

Offhand, no.

I gave him a stat that showed 10-25% of donations actually make their way to charity, so you don't have to deal with his pompous sarcasm.

 

[countryboy]

Here's answer to most of your questions. Apparently MIT took a look at this whole idea and come up with this:

Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals? - LA Times

First, what was considered conservative and liberal was not clear. Some of this must have been wrong, MIT concluded, because conservatives tend to be richer, but in the Brooks study, liberals were richer. Liberals tended to give more to secular organizations, while conservatives tended to give more to their churches. To answer one of your questions directly:



And here's a great example of that:



Almost all of Romney's donations somehow found their way to the church - of which only a max 25% actually go to charity (and a subset of that to the poor). Meanwhile, Obama gives to mostly secular orgs:



And to answer your final question:



Kind of ****s all over your simple world-view narrative, eh?

I don't think one study by two libs "****s" all over anything. But I am not surprised you do. :wink:

 

[whysoserious]

I don't think one study by two libs "****s" all over anything. But I am not surprised you do. :wink:

So you can't refute any of that? Hmm... that's ****ing unfortunate.

Though a conservative would assume two guys from MIT are liberal... LOL.

 

[countryboy]

You're taking my argument and changing the words and ideas so that it is something you can argue against. It's a basic logical fallacy, and you use it very well.

No I didn't. You brought it up, I merely asked a question.

 

[countryboy]

So you can't refute any of that? Hmm... that's ****ing unfortunate.

Of course I can. I can produce multiple studies which refute it. But is it going to sway your preconceived notions? I don't think so.

Though a conservative would assume two guys from MIT are liberal... LOL.

Right, two political science profs from MIT are probably raging conservatives. My bad. :roll:

 

[whysoserious]

Of course I can. I can produce multiple studies which refute it. But is it going to sway your preconceived notions? I don't think so.

Right, two political science profs from MIT are probably raging conservatives. My bad. :roll:

You can cite multiple studies that refute the MIT report? Please do.

 

[What if...?]

That's a pretty dangerous road, though. I would think a more realistic and ethical approach would be finding these genetic issues and fixing them.

Ideally, yes. Of course that's considered eugenics too. And we both know it'll be rich folks customizing their kids long before they get around to ending genetic maladies that currently require profitable treatments.

Ya know, we already practice simple eugenics when we outlaw marriages closer than second cousins. And its done to minimize consanguinity. First cousins who never met before adulthood are still forbidden to marry.