Yes, emotion and logic are not opposites. The spectrum is Thought Process, and on one side you have logic, and the other is emotion.
Is it just my perception or are "liberals" taking this virus
- Thread starter Cavitybacks
- Start date
Really? Everywhere I look, I see logic in the Universe. It takes much more faith to look at the Universe, understand what's going on (as much as we can anyway), and say to yourself, "yep, thank goodness for science or all this stuff wouldn't be here".
It's much more logical to think, "the odds are so astronomically low that all of this happened on its own, there must have been a creator or God who did it".
That's just the way I see it.
I think statements like that fail to take into account what "astronomical" really means. Sure, the odds of life on any given planet are very tiny. It's estimated that there are some 10 Trillion galaxies in the universe. The Milky Way is one galaxy with roughly 100 Million stars in it. You multiply those two and you get a number that I truly think is beyond human comprehension. So the odds of any given thing happening SOMEWHERE in the universe are pretty high. The fact that's we're here is (or could be) just a coincidence. The random odds of having a Clemson picture on my office wall in this exact spot in the universe in this exact moment in time is also quite low. But it's not evidence of a higher power.
Now if you could somehow show that we actually are the entirety of intelligent life in existence, I'd find the idea of divine intervention more compelling.
You can't prove something doesn't exist, it's impossible. I believe aliens exist, but I also believe they were created just like we were. Aliens don't prove God doesn't exist.
I also know how large the Universe is, and how incomprehensible it is. Sure, it doesn't matter how low the odds are, it will happen somewhere in the Universe because it's so large. I get all that.
What I don't get is how science decided that the force of gravity was going to be 9.8 m/s^2? How did science know that that was the exact amount of force required to achieve balance? Any less gravity, and nothing would stick together; any more gravity, and everything would stick together. It has to be exactly 9.8 m/s^2 or it doesn't work.
Yeah, I don't think that's true at all. Dozens of other celestial bodies in our own Solar System kind of prove that (e.g. Mercury, Venus, the Moon, Mars, Titan, etc etc). I'm not trying to say that God isn't real, just that your argument doesn't make a lick of sense. Gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 because that's what it is with how much mass the Earth has.
Also I find it curious that the existence of aliens don't shake your faith at all. If you're not a new Earth creationist, though, I guess it's not a logical problem.
Science, by definition, doesn't "decide" things.
That sentence is legit ICP Magnets territory.
You don’t think there are other positions from the left (outside of gun control) that do not align with facts? You speak with a lot of absolutes
I don't think most people would argue that identity politics is currently a position that many on the left have taken that doesn't align with the facts.
I look at identity politics as neither left nor right, but more of a Democrat party strategy to trick people. It is used by some republicans as well. The MSM loves it
That was the mainstream lefty position that came to mind. Do you have any others?
Could you elaborate? My understanding is that the evidence on minimum wage hikes is mixed, with some studies showing reduction in labor force participation and some not.
A nerve? Sure. I felt like an idiot almost formed a sentence and that was almost a measurable inflection point.
So you're telling me it's...mixed opinions. If you want to do it this way I can just pull up Trump's 2016 platform and go over all the items that have no basis in reality.
Again, I'm talking overall. So far we're still just at gun control for things that aren't factually based that are mainstream liberal positions.
I didn’t vote for Trump
I think Trump is left leaning on a variety of topics. No, we also have the 15 dollar national minimum wage. You aren’t an economist. You don’t think there are others from the left?
Well Trump is the head of them Republican party, I'd say his policy positions are significant.
I'm sure there are others from the left, I'm just not sure how mainstream and consequential they are.
People on the right disproportionately (and not in small numbers):
Deny climate change
Support tax policy that's been shown over and over to not work as stated
Ignore experts
Support abstinence only sex education
Support drug testing for welfare programs
Oppose Marijuana legalization
Support building a border wall
Think things like "selling across state lines" would improve healthcare (it's already legal in several places and insurers didn't care)
Oppose things like needle exchanges
The bulk (but not entirety) of those are ignoring reality in lieu of emotions. The left has some stupid stuff. Skepticism of nuclear power and (until recently) protectionist trade policy, for example (and both of those are more lefty than mainstream liberal). I just don't see there being a question as to which side is more based in fact but you're welcome to try to change my mind. You just won't be able to do it with isolated examples that aren't even compelling on their own.
Trump was a Dem for years and still is in many respects.
Overall, it depends on your definition of right vs left. Currently, Democrats and Republicans are very similar to me (with the exception of a few lunatics on both sides). I think some of what you point out is not “the right” or “the left”.
One thing to point out: it is one sided to say republicans don’t follow facts regarding taxes. There are those on the left who want higher capital gains tax, when the facts show lower capital gains tax leads to higher tax revenue and investment (win win). IMO Complete drug legalization is a view of the right. Both democrats and republicans want to legalize it (limited govt side of the right)
If you have a study that lowering capital gains increases revenue I'd love to read it. It doesn't make any intuitive sense but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Preferably a study that's not from Heritage or Cato.
Just real quick one. Always good to look at the source
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CapitalGainsTaxes.html
Thanks for the link. I'll critique both the content and its source, if that's ok.
The article itself states that one of the biggest reasons for the phenomenon of temporary (his words) increased revenue is that people choose when to pay capital gains taxes. It's much like saying the repatriation tax holidays are a good idea (or that trying to fuel a fire but throwing nothing but newspaper on it is sustainable). This, to me, suggests that the problem with capital gains is not that the rate is too high but that's it's not structured ideally.
The author is also the chief economist for the heritage foundation so... I'm going to be skeptical of his ability to operate in good faith in this space.
Some more follow up.
His primary data set, from what I can tell, is a graph that shows capital gains tax rate plotted against capital gains tax revenue raised. I've got several problems with how he's used this to make his point.
- It assumes that stock market booms were driven by lowering capital gains rates. You see big spikes during the 80's and the turn of the century. Was the stock market roaring because of an 8% drop in the capital gains tax rate? I have a hard time believing this.
- Capital gains tax revenue in dollars is a pretty bad way to look at this to begin with. Over all of the years in that chart the population of the United States grew quite a bit as did the economy as a whole. Judging revenue by raw (inflation adjusted) dollars doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
- Here's a line from the article that I think shows he's not operating in good faith
Figure 1 is that chart. A huge part of economics is not conflating correlation with causation and here he just blows right past that and says that the tax cuts caused the revenue increase. There's nothing in the article to suggest that's the case other than his speculation.
This is just one example, there are many others. I’ll send a few others tomorrow. This is another example where there are no absolutes. Bill Clinton lowered the capital gains tax
To clarify, when I was speaking of tax policy I was speaking of the dogma of "tax cuts pay for themselves" and mostly in regards to income taxes.
I didn't "Grammar Nazi" you. My critique was not on grammar, it was that you didn't communicate anything effectively. Idiot.
