On a humorous note...
 

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/world/asia/19japan.html]Obama Journal: Candidate Wins Support in the East. No, Farther East.[/url]

But see those fancy lacquer chopsticks? All style - no substance, no 35-years-of-fighting-for-wooden-chopsticks experience behind them. All sushi, no meat, as it were. Yep, I remember when me 'n Mr. Cesar Chavez hisself took on the Sushi special-interests and won a great victory for the rights of the migrant wasabi pickers...

[quote=Zeta-Flux;126357]And my claim is that Democrats do the same thing[/quote]Again you are completely missing the implication of my phrase "a natural consequence of conservatives' "strict father" worldview as explained in what's-his-name's book [I]Moral Politics[/I]." If you're going to argue, please stop ignoring that final line.

[quote]In other, more explicit, words: Some Democrats cross over to vote for who they believe is the weaker match-up,[/quote][U]... but not with the same motivation as Republicans for believing in some candidate's weakness![/U] The average Democrat is [U]not[/U] a conservative with a "strict father" worldview!

I was not referring to the issue of crossover voting or to the issue of choosing whom one believes to be the weaker opponent! I was referring to the [I]specifically-expressed[/I] view that [I]Hillary[/I] was considered the weaker candidate by Republicans, not to the general idea that Republicans would have an opinion about who would be the weaker opponent!

I can understand your initial misinterpretation; I've admitted that my writing wasn't as clear as it could have been.

You have neither answered, referred to, or shown signs of thinking about my question "Did you consider it so obvious that Hillary would be the less-formidable opponent that you never considered the possibility that [I]that[/I] is what I was disagreeing with, but calling predictable?" Perhaps I shouldn't have put that smilie after that question; it wasn't meant to be rhetorical.

[quote]Perhaps the reason you didn't hear about it during your elections[/quote]Perhaps if you were to carefully re-read my previous postings, you would notice that they contain no evidence that I "didn't hear about it". How did you arrive at that conclusion (that I didn't hear about it) without any evidence that it was true?

[quote](and for the same reason you find disagreeable).[/quote]No, it was [U]not[/U] for the same reason I find disagreeable, because you have failed to understand [U]what it was that I disagreed with[/U].

[quote]My beef isn't with crossover voting;[/quote]Neither was mine. [B][U]Please explicitly acknowledge that![/U][/B]

[quote]cheesehead's implicit claim that Republicans are the majority of ones participating in voting tactics he would find disagreeable.[/quote][B][U]No, that is NOT my implicit claim.[/U][/B]

[U][B]Please stop slandering me by perpetuating that idea![/B][/U]

[quote]because it gave cheesehead the mistaken impression that I think Democrats cross over for different reasons than Republicans.[/quote]No, it didn't. Instead, you have missed my actual point about choosing Hillary, not about choosing the apparent weakest opponent or about crossover voting. I am trying to correct your misinterpretation before you spread further slander about me.

[quote=M29;126365]Obama needs to convince me that he can stand up to some very strong world leaders.

He can do that by smashing Hillary.[/quote]So, you consider Hillary to be a very strong world leader?

[QUOTE][U]... but not with the same motivation as Republicans for believing in some candidate's weakness![/U][/QUOTE]Your first post (on 20 Feb 08, 10:24 PM) included a statement of your "disagreeing" with Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary because they thought she was a weaker candidate *before* you predicted it came about due to "strict father" wordviews.

So, yes, if you instead meant to say that you disagree with "strict father" worldviews influencing crossover voting for weaker candidates (which, you must admit, goes against the plain meaning of your words in that post), but that crossover voting for weaker candidates is not (in and of itself) something you disagree with, then I don't have anything to disagree with you on. I wouldn't personally ascribe a small sample of "crossover voting against Hillary as a weaker candidate" to "strict father" worldviews, but arguing it doesn't appeal to me.

If I'm still misunderstanding you, feel free to clarify.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;126420]If I'm still misunderstanding you[/quote]Yes, you are!

You apparently don't know what the "strict father" worldview is, or you wouldn't have written that it was "influencing crossover voting for weaker candidates". If you actually knew what it meant, you would have known that I was applying it to the Republicans' choice of Hillary as the weaker candidate, _not_ to their decision to vote for the weaker candidate whoever that is, and _not_ to their decision to crossover-vote!

I even stated _twice_ in my last posting that my disagreement was about the idea that _Hillary_ was the weaker candidate
[quote]I was referring to the [I]specifically-expressed[/I] view that [I]Hillary[/I] was considered the weaker candidate by Republicans, not to the general idea that Republicans would have an opinion about who would be the weaker opponent![/quote]
[quote]Instead, you have missed my actual point about choosing Hillary, not about choosing the apparent weakest opponent or about crossover voting.[/quote]and I commented[quote]You have neither answered, referred to, or shown signs of thinking about my question "Did you consider it so obvious that Hillary would be the less-formidable opponent that you never considered the possibility that [I]that[/I] is what I was disagreeing with, but calling predictable?"[/quote]. You seem to have a real blindspot there. (So I guess we know what your answer is to my "Did you consider it so obvious ..." question. Apparently it's "yes".)

If you don't know what the "strict father" worldview is, you should have been more cautious about interpreting that sentence of mine ("I disagree with that (for more than one reason), but it's easily predictable because it's a natural consequence of conservatives' 'strict father' worldview as explained in what's-his-name's book [I]Moral Politics[/I]") and less eager to attribute unflattering opinions to me.

(to be continued in a few minutes)

[quote=Zeta-Flux;126420]Your first post (on 20 Feb 08, 10:24 PM) included a statement of your "disagreeing" with Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary because they thought she was a weaker candidate *before* you predicted it came about due to "strict father" wordviews.[/quote]Actually, both were in the same sentence! ("I disagree with that (for more than one reason), but it's easily predictable because ...") Sentences are linear -- I _had_ to write one set of words before the other; I couldn't write them simultaneously. But I could (and did) include both in the _same_ sentence.

However, I've already agreed that my wording there could have been clearer. The key was the antecedent of "that" ("I disagree with that ...") and "it" ("... but it's easily predictable ..."). I should have made it clear what "that" and "it" referred to, instead of leaving the antecedent to default to the last preceding clause ("they considered her to be the less-formidable opponent for McCain"), which seemed natural to me.

(Pop quiz: What is the antecedent of "which" in my preceding sentence?)

[quote]So, yes, if you instead meant to say that you disagree with "strict father" worldviews influencing crossover voting for weaker candidates[/quote]No, I didn't.

[quote](which, you must admit, goes against the plain meaning of your words in that post)[/quote]Yes.

[quote]but that crossover voting for weaker candidates is not (in and of itself) something you disagree with,[/quote]Well, there is a tangential issue, not exactly disagreement, there but I haven't intended to refer to it before this current sentence. It's possible my awareness of this separate not-mentioned-until-now issue clouded my realization of the need to clarify the "that" and "it" antecedent. (*sigh*)

[quote]then I don't have anything to disagree with you on.[/quote]Ummm ... a "Hillary blindspot"?

cheesehead,

I was using the word "before" in the "antecedant" sense, and not the "time-wise" sense. It is irrelevant (as you admitted) that two thoughts are in the same sentence, if a pronoun points to its antecedan. Anyway, this isn't here nor there, and there is really no need to pick my posts apart.

[QUOTE]You apparently don't know what the "strict father" worldview is, or you wouldn't have written that it was "influencing crossover voting for weaker candidates". If you actually knew what it meant, you would have known that I was applying it to the Republicans' choice of Hillary as the weaker candidate, _not_ to their decision to vote for the weaker candidate whoever that is, and _not_ to their decision to crossover-vote![/QUOTE]No, I remember your post months ago on that topic, and I understand that a "strict father" worldview ties into Hillary specifically (rather than, say, Obama). *My* hang-up was trying to change my reading of your original post in a minimal way to still make it compatible with your current statements.

In other words, when I read mathematics papers and someone says something that contradicts something else later (which tends to happen--no need to get worked up by it), I try (to the best of my ability) to reconcile the two by making as small a change as possible. So, when I read-- "BTW, some exit interviews during yesterday's voting here in Wisconsin revealed (as expected) that some Republicans were "crossing over" to vote for Hillary because they considered her to be the less-formidable opponent for McCain. I disagree with that (for more than one reason), but it's easily predictable because it's a natural consequence of conservatives' "strict father" worldview as explained in what's-his-name's book Moral Politics." --I naturally assumed that your disagreement had *something* to do with cross-over voting. Thank you for clarifying further.

If I'm reading you correctly, your disagreement is with Republicans thinking Hillary is the weaker candidate vs. McCain. but only if they assume this due to "strict father" worldviews. Is this correct? (Or is it just thinking Hillary is weaker, for whatever reason?)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;126282]

<snip>

I disagree with that (for more than one reason), but it's easily predictable because it's a natural consequence of conservatives' "strict father" worldview as explained in what's-his-name's book [I]Moral Politics[/I].[/QUOTE]

I am curious.
I have not read the book. Would you explain further? What is
this worldview?

[quote=Zeta-Flux;126464]It is irrelevant (as you admitted)[/quote]I did? If so, I didn't mean to. That both are in the same sentence _is_ relevant, because that allows "that" and "it" to share the same antecedent.

[quote]No, I remember your post months ago on that topic, and I understand that a "strict father" worldview ties into Hillary specifically (rather than, say, Obama).[/quote]So, if you do understand, how does that jibe with your repeated omission of the "Hillary" word in all those postings where you were tying "strict father" to weaker-candidate or to crossover-voting? I think that if you actually understood that worldview, you wouldn't have been misled in the first place and wouldn't have made those false attributions to me.

[quote]If I'm reading you correctly, your disagreement is with Republicans thinking Hillary is the weaker candidate vs. McCain.[/quote]yes[quote]but only if they assume this due to "strict father" worldviews.[/quote]no, not this added condition.

[quote](Or is it just thinking Hillary is weaker, for whatever reason?)[/quote]That's what I was disagreeing with.

[quote=R.D. Silverman;126465]I am curious.
I have not read the book. Would you explain further? What is
this worldview?[/quote]See "The Conservative Worldview" at [URL]http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic/nationasfamily/sfworldview[/URL].

It's Part Three of a series, along with

Part One, "The Nation as a Family" at [URL]http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic/nationasfamily/nationasfamily[/URL] and

Part Two, "The Progressive Worldview" at [URL]http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic/nationasfamily/npworldview[/URL].

There's a Wikipedia article [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics[/URL] about the book [I]Moral Politics[/I] by George Lakoff (_that_'s his name).

[QUOTE]So if you do understand, how does that jibe with your repeated omission of the "Hillary" word in all those postings where you were tying "strict father" to weaker-candidate or to crossover-voting?[/QUOTE]Repeated? You might look back at my posts.

But, I've already explained, my confusion came from misreading your initial post, and subsequently misreading later posts.

Best,
Zeta-Flux