-
Yeah, mostly because of people with completely backwards priorities, scientific illiteracy, and general irrationality and unreasonableness.
-
Edited by Garland: 5/2/2013 7:55:45 PMAccusing conservatives of being "malevolent pricks" because of lightbulb packaging is quite irrational and unreasonable. You're the one being scientifically illiterate, because this study only shows a difference in buying habits, not the reasoning behind them. Unless you can conclusively prove that the conservatives' buying habits were based on a conscious rationale of "-blam!- the environment! I hate the Earth!", then you're the joke here.
-
[quote]Accusing conservatives of being "malevolent pricks" because of lightbulb packaging is quite irrational and unreasonable.[/quote]Once again, you're acting like this is the only reason I made that characterization. Which it's not. [quote]You're the one being scientifically illiterate, because this study only shows a difference in buying habits, not the reasoning behind them. Unless you can conclusively prove that the conservatives' buying habits were based on a conscious rationale of "-blam!- the environment! I hate the Earth!", then you're the joke here.[/quote]I don't really care what their reasoning was; the fact remains that the study demonstrates that conservatives are averse to buying environmentally labeled products, which is productive of harm (malevolent).
-
[quote]I don't really care what their reasoning was; the fact remains that the study demonstrates that conservatives are averse to buying environmentally labeled products, which is productive of harm (malevolent).[/quote]Their reasoning is extremely relevant, since malevolence requires the [i]intent[/i] to do harm, and not just the existence of harm as a result of their actions. You have no basis for accusing anyone of malevolence when there is absolutely no indication that people of a conservative bent avoided the environmentally friendly labelled bulbs out of a conscious desire to cause harm.
-
Edited by New Radical: 5/2/2013 8:46:06 PM[quote]Their reasoning is extremely relevant, since malevolence requires the [i]intent[/i] to do harm, and not just the existence of harm as a result of their actions. You have no basis for accusing anyone of malevolence when there is absolutely no indication that people of a conservative bent avoided the environmentally friendly labelled bulbs out of a conscious desire to cause harm.[/quote][url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malevolent]No[/url] (I'm using the second definition)
-
I'd argue that the second definition would be inappropriate to apply to a human being in any meaningful sense. Regardless, that definition is so broad that it applies to every human being alive on the planet.
-
Edited by RighteousTyrant: 5/2/2013 8:55:36 PMFrom the examples, that seems to apply mostly to describing inanimate objects that are incapable of intent. For sentient beings, however, the first definition is a more appropriate interpretation. Further, if you look at the etymology, the word is clearly related to intent, coming from the Greek words for "bad" and "wish". lrn2English.
-
Edited by New Radical: 5/2/2013 10:37:19 PMHoly -blam!-, you are dense. There's nothing about that definition that says or implies that it can't apply to people. Those examples aren't -blam!-ing exhaustive, not are they restrictive. Stop grasping at straws; you're wrong. And "sincere" comes from Latin meaning "without wax." The etymological origins aren't really relevant to current uses.
-
Edited by RighteousTyrant: 5/3/2013 4:33:35 PMI never said they were exhaustive or restrictive, but a trend clearly exists. Perhaps you'd do better to find authoritative examples that counter the trend, rather than stamp your feet and say "you're wrong". [quote]And "sincere" comes from Latin meaning "without wax." The etymological origins aren't really relevant to current uses.[/quote]Only if you're a dunce, which you clearly aren't, so I'll explain. "Without wax" as in without a varnish or other covering to change the appearance thereof; the original thing that is supposed. "Sincere" has a meaning that can be easily interpreted along those lines, as a sincere comment is one that is meant truthfully and without any hidden pretext. The definitions that Google shows: [quote]Free from pretense or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings. (of a person) Saying what they genuinely feel or believe; not dishonest or hypocritical.[/quote]Lines up with the etymology rather well IMO. Obviously, not always does this work, etymology is a weird thing, but often it does.
-
[quote]And "sincere" comes from Latin meaning "without wax."[/quote]what
-
[quote][quote]Accusing conservatives of being "malevolent pricks" because of lightbulb packaging is quite irrational and unreasonable.[/quote]Once again, you're acting like this is the only reason I made that characterization. Which it's not.[/quote]I'm gonna parrot you and point out that this isn't relevant to the study. I'll repost what I put earlier since you obviously missed it: Right now you look like nothing more than some colossal dick or a half-baked troll for following an article about light bulbs with some sweeping, negative generalisation. If you really want to do that, go make an article about why conservatives are pricks. And cite something with a lot more substance. [quote]I don't really care what their reasoning was[/quote]Then you're being intellectually dishonest. You're distorting things to fit your preconceived notions that conservatives are scum. [quote]the fact remains that the study demonstrates that conservatives are averse to buying environmentally labeled products, which is productive of harm (malevolent).[/quote]As the study points out, they're only averse to packaging. They aren't opposed to buying more efficient light bulbs, but merely the ones that use a specific marketing scheme.
-
This. It's pretty obvious that people who buy non environmental stuff do so because they're cheaper, and not because of a political stand point. At the very, very, VERY most there may be a correlation between being a conservative and buying less environmentally friendly light bulbs.
-
This is not relevant to the study. Holy -blam!-ing shit, why can't anybody comprehend this rather simple study?
-
" In a real-choice context, more conservative individuals were less likely to purchase a more expensive energy-efficient light bulb when it was labeled with an environmental message than when it was unlabeled" Expensive is the key word in that. That's the point.
-
Edited by New Radical: 5/2/2013 8:12:34 PMHoly -blam!-. Stop. Here's how it works: There were two types of CFLs: Labelled and unlabeled The two CFLs cost the [u]same amount as each other[/u], but were both more expensive than the incandescent light bulbs Conservatives were more willing to buy the CFLs when they were unlabeled than when they were labeled This isn't about price differences.
-
Oh and don't forget the reputation environmental light bulbs have. You know, at being really shit? That reputation?
-
It really is.