T-Men Prone to be Conservative?

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
JD430 wrote:
Oh Jesus…this is a minefield topic.

If by conservative you mean pro-freedom, patriotic, small-government, self-reliant guys…then yes, anyone without those traits cannot be a “T-man”.

A brief parallel thought, on T, leadership, and the balance of freedom and responsibilty, from the first conservative:

"The great must submit to the dominion of prudence and of virtue, or none will long submit to the dominion of the great."

ATTRIBUTION: Edmund Burke (1729 to 1797)

Cuts both ways…[/quote]

So as not to risk putting words in your mouth, I’m going to need you to speak upon this quote and bring your interpretation of it to this particular discussion.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…someone who’s truely confident and secure does not bother with little labels like ‘T-Men’ or ‘Conservative/Liberal’…[/quote]

+1

Testosterone and Politics are basically mutually exclusive. Trying to conflate the two is a bit like trying to get a T-man to be conservative or liberal. :wink:

[quote]JD430 wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
JD430 wrote:
Oh Jesus…this is a minefield topic.

If by conservative you mean pro-freedom, patriotic, small-government, self-reliant guys…then yes, anyone without those traits cannot be a “T-man”.

A brief parallel thought, on T, leadership, and the balance of freedom and responsibilty, from the first conservative:

"The great must submit to the dominion of prudence and of virtue, or none will long submit to the dominion of the great."

ATTRIBUTION: Edmund Burke (1729 to 1797)

Cuts both ways…

So as not to risk putting words in your mouth, I’m going to need you to speak upon this quote and bring your interpretation of it to this particular discussion.[/quote]

JD,

Sometimes I just put some old quote out there, to remind ourselves that we are not inventing something new.

The Burke quote is from some speech, and I cannot recall its context. But it has context in this thread, which is about “T”–or “manly virtue,” if you like-- and poltiical conservatism.

For me, this little quote captures some thoughts:
–government is by the consent of the governed, even to a conservative
–traditions are of value, and fashion or novelty in politics is false and dangerous
–the conservative tradition should not be a “laundry list” of ideas; it should be about prudence and practicality and respect for virtue. (Just think how a “compassionate conservative,” or Bush, or Huckabee, proffers a list of virtues, only to subvert real enduring ideals.)
–it is up to us, the governed, to protect those ideals.

Or perhaps I am wrong, and I read to much into too little. I welcome your better thoughts.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:

Fair enough.

But you have to concede that 72% is not a figure you can just call “polling bias” on. Even if there was indeed bias of some sort, that still puts a very substantial portion of the troops on the we’re-sick-of-this-foreign-policy bandwagon. And I am yet to see any criticism of the methodology used in that particular poll…

Well, since the thread has been hijacked, I would highly value your input on the following story. Seeing that you’ve lead men in similar situations, do you condemn the initiative or are you sympathetic to their cause?

U.S. Soldiers Stage Mutiny, Refuse Orders in Iraq Fearing They Would Commit Massacre in Revenge for IED Attack

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/21/us_soldiers_stage_mutiny_refuse_orders[/quote]

First off, I very deeply distrust democracynow.org. I have a hard time believing that a unit would come together and claim that they would commit a massacre. How does a unit decide that? But for the sake of argument, I’ll say that they are being sincere and not just deciding to go outside the wire because they don’t want to. If individuals chose not to go because they could not handle it anymore and feared that they may hurt civilians then they made the right choice. I just fail to see how a unit could collectively state that feeling. It is pretty extreme and certainly and individual one. I guarantee there is much more to this story.

But it is the duty of small unit leaders to pick up on who is a potential problem. One of my former corporals from my old unit did this to a member of his fireteam before they went on their current deployment. He saw a kid who was trouble and had stated multiple times that he “just wanted to kill some ragheads”. This corporal harassed command nonstop until the kid was sent home. He may well have prevented a Haditha.

mike

What exactly is a T-man? Someone who lifts weights? Someone who has high Testosterone? Or simply a member of T nation? You operate under the assumption that this website is home to some sort of dying breed of man…

[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
What exactly is a T-man? Someone who lifts weights? Someone who has high Testosterone? Or simply a member of T nation? You operate under the assumption that this website is home to some sort of dying breed of man…[/quote]

Being a T-man does not necessarily have anything to do with lifting weights. T-men are those men that are proud of their masculinity. Those that stick up for what they believe in and are not ashamed of their desires and skills. T-men are fair and just. They are both mentally and physically strong. T-men are men of high intelligence and responsibility. T-men can be relied upon by friends and family. T-men raise their children to be proud of their gender and the traits associated with it. T-men treat women with respect but acknowledge the differences between the sexes. T-men are leaders.

Did I leave anything out? I think this sums it up pretty well.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…someone who’s truely confident and secure does not bother with little labels like ‘T-Men’ or ‘Conservative/Liberal’…

Malevolence wrote:
+1

Testosterone and Politics are basically mutually exclusive. Trying to conflate the two is a bit like trying to get a T-man to be conservative or liberal. :wink:
[/quote]

Labels have nothing to do with confidence, or lack thereof. It actually has more to do with brain function. The urge is to place labels on everything. To generalize. Without this function we would have to relearn the alphabet every time somebody changed a font.

Also this is a discussion about T-Men, not testosterone. Being a T-Man is a philosophy, not just having high T. What it truly is is still up for debate, but I have found it to involve intelligence, respect, honor, and health. To act as a man, a real man, and that doesn’t mean act like an asshole, nor act as a pansy or doormat.

It means if your fat, it’s not McDonald’s fault, its yours. Take responsibility. Want to change that? Then change it. This idea flows over to other aspects of life, not just diet and exercise.

I drank the (sugar free) Kool-aid, Shaved my head, (Ok, got a haircut at least,) and joined the cult.

It’s the reason my home page has only changed once (from Testosterone.net to T-Nation.com) since 1999.

BOOBIES.

[quote]tedro wrote:
Nikiforos wrote:
What exactly is a T-man? Someone who lifts weights? Someone who has high Testosterone? Or simply a member of T nation? You operate under the assumption that this website is home to some sort of dying breed of man…

Being a T-man does not necessarily have anything to do with lifting weights. T-men are those men that are proud of their masculinity. Those that stick up for what they believe in and are not ashamed of their desires and skills. T-men are fair and just. They are both mentally and physically strong. T-men are men of high intelligence and responsibility. T-men can be relied upon by friends and family. T-men raise their children to be proud of their gender and the traits associated with it. T-men treat women with respect but acknowledge the differences between the sexes. T-men are leaders.

Did I leave anything out? I think this sums it up pretty well.[/quote]

…and you fit your own description, do you?

[quote]tedro wrote:
Nikiforos wrote:
What exactly is a T-man? Someone who lifts weights? Someone who has high Testosterone? Or simply a member of T nation? You operate under the assumption that this website is home to some sort of dying breed of man…

Being a T-man does not necessarily have anything to do with lifting weights. T-men are those men that are proud of their masculinity. Those that stick up for what they believe in and are not ashamed of their desires and skills. T-men are fair and just. They are both mentally and physically strong. T-men are men of high intelligence and responsibility. T-men can be relied upon by friends and family. T-men raise their children to be proud of their gender and the traits associated with it. T-men treat women with respect but acknowledge the differences between the sexes. T-men are leaders.

Did I leave anything out? I think this sums it up pretty well.[/quote]

Very well. I think a lot of these are universally admirable traits which a lot of people hope to emulate. Others are also traits which most people can respect if not necessarily emulate.

Do you, therefore, claim that these positive qualities are more in line with the conservative mindset, than other certain political philosophies?

If so, what traits would you say are more likely to accompany the liberal mindset?

[quote]ephrem wrote:
tedro wrote:
Nikiforos wrote:
What exactly is a T-man? Someone who lifts weights? Someone who has high Testosterone? Or simply a member of T nation? You operate under the assumption that this website is home to some sort of dying breed of man…

Being a T-man does not necessarily have anything to do with lifting weights. T-men are those men that are proud of their masculinity. Those that stick up for what they believe in and are not ashamed of their desires and skills. T-men are fair and just. They are both mentally and physically strong. T-men are men of high intelligence and responsibility. T-men can be relied upon by friends and family. T-men raise their children to be proud of their gender and the traits associated with it. T-men treat women with respect but acknowledge the differences between the sexes. T-men are leaders.

Did I leave anything out? I think this sums it up pretty well.

…and you fit your own description, do you?

[/quote]

I don’t have any children, but the rest would fit.

i think a real t-man doesn’t get caught up in attributing his views to a single party.

he looks at the issue, and deals with it accordingly, some problems require a liberal solution, some require a conservative one.

no T = applying a template of pre determined views to an issue before even understanding it.

It’s about thinking for yourself, being alpha, and not being a wuss by hiding inside some party that provides morals and ethics for you

I see all of my pet peeves about labeling rolled into one on this thread. Every person on this thread has a different conception of the meaning of L/liberal and C/conservative, only a few of which have a strong link to any universal and precise definition-- to the extent they exist.

Then there’s the “T-man” thing. When someone is called a “t-man” or is said to be “high-T” we aren’t making any declarations about their actual hormonal status, correct? I ask because the set of values attributed to the “T-man” have little correlation either way to the behavioral attributes associated with high testosterone levels. Sure some values in that set may correlate, and correlate strongly, but others that are conveniently forgotten are somehow omitted.

In any event, hormone levels primarily exert their behavioral influences in adults through their effects on emotions. Sometimes I think I’m the only one who thinks policy should be made in as much of emotional vacuum (on the part of the decision maker, though conscious of the effects of others’ emotions on their reactions) as possible. No emotional baggage like trying to help people even if more will be hurt in the process (unless that act of futility can be used for other means later) or seeking revenge when the costs outweigh the benefits because it’s just “right” or feels good. I’ll take numbers on a page over visceral feelings any day. That’s entirely at odds with seemingly every value in the political and social mainstream though.

I’m really not concerned about the labels. I just used them in my thread title because it was the only convenient thing to do.

[quote]schultzie wrote:
i think a real t-man doesn’t get caught up in attributing his views to a single party.

he looks at the issue, and deals with it accordingly, some problems require a liberal solution, some require a conservative one.

no T = applying a template of pre determined views to an issue before even understanding it.

It’s about thinking for yourself, being alpha, and not being a wuss by hiding inside some party that provides morals and ethics for you[/quote]

Nail on the fuckin head.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
schultzie wrote:
i think a real t-man doesn’t get caught up in attributing his views to a single party.

he looks at the issue, and deals with it accordingly, some problems require a liberal solution, some require a conservative one.

no T = applying a template of pre determined views to an issue before even understanding it.

It’s about thinking for yourself, being alpha, and not being a wuss by hiding inside some party that provides morals and ethics for you

Nail on the fuckin head.[/quote]

So you can’t be in the cool club if you belong to a party? Please. You two knobs define liberal talking points. Don’t insult my intelligence by insinuating that you are the creator of “Bush Lied - People Died”.

A) He didn’t say anything about belonging to a party, but if you’re the kind of person who falls totally in line with EVERYTHING your party says, you are both a pathetic douche bag AND a non-T-man.

B) I consider myself moderate, and I’m one HELL of a lot more conservative than most of my friends. I have a realistic view of economics, or at least I’d like to think I do. I’m not, in any way, a liberal poster boy.

C) Where the fuck did you pull “Bush Lied - People Died” from? I’ve always thought that slogan was stupid. I don’t think he lied, I think he was manipulated. I honestly have nothing against Bush as a man. I think he got corralled into being president after Jeb fucked himself over, and I can semi-sympathize with that.

Explain to me how I define Lib talking points? I’m really interested to hear…

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
A) He didn’t say anything about belonging to a party, but if you’re the kind of person who falls totally in line with EVERYTHING your party says, you are both a pathetic douche bag AND a non-T-man.

B) I consider myself moderate, and I’m one HELL of a lot more conservative than most of my friends. I have a realistic view of economics, or at least I’d like to think I do. I’m not, in any way, a liberal poster boy.

C) Where the fuck did you pull “Bush Lied - People Died” from? I’ve always thought that slogan was stupid. I don’t think he lied, I think he was manipulated. I honestly have nothing against Bush as a man. I think he got corralled into being president after Jeb fucked himself over, and I can semi-sympathize with that.

Explain to me how I define Lib talking points? I’m really interested to hear…[/quote]

I think you are a punk kid with no real experience beyond that of whatever the poly-sci professor spoon fed you in class.

Did you even read what he wrote? It would seem you did, else you would not have quoted him and told him how marvelous his post was. SO why are you asking me?

This is fucking complete nonsense.

Look, I’m disinclined towards voting for Republicans because of the affinity for Neoconservativism that popular Republicans tend toward (Mitt Romney is satan in my mind, he stands for Torture and Internment (morally reprehensible), the Patriot Act (Big Government legislation), and essentially the reiteration and emboldening of Bush’s shockingly intrusive, immoral policy.

It seems to me that today’s Republicans claim to be the common-sense, small government, Constitutionally mindful, morally conscious individuals that their parents might have been. But their behavior and their dictum simply do not square.

Today’s majority Republicans are driven entirely by their emotions and are just far too willing to fork over their individual rights to the government (Remember people, personal responsibility should go in hands with the Freedom to act as an individual - According to the Declaration, we’re all entitled “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” - it’s a pillar of our Society.)

IMO, Neoconservatives are far more dangerous to open society than the most socialist-leaning, tax-happy, Big Government liberal. They indeed seem to have estrogen coursing through their veins, with all of their sheepish willingness to give into government demands, emotionally driven actions, and downright lack of common-sense.

Ron Paul seems to be a T-Nation type guy, and I would vote for him - if I believed he had a chance. Seriously, if he somehow manages to earn the nomination I will vote for him. And no, Hillary is not getting my vote either way. But you seriously need to stop chalking up Left/Right leanings to manliness, it’s a difference in philosophy.

Being a meek individual, bereft of testicles, reading this without voicing their opinion is the absolute most feminine thing one can be.

I think the blind hatred of one group as displayed by people that have no goddamned clue what a neocon even is, is just as closed minded and group thinkish as being the button wearing member of either party.

I think there are a bunch of poly-sci professors out there that are working overtime.

Listen up, children: Get a job, move out of mom’s basement, pay for your own shit, pay your taxes, then comeback and try to hold a conversation.

Talking to college kids is torture. I have never met one that didn’t think they knew it all.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think the blind hatred of one group as displayed by people that have no goddamned clue what a neocon even is, is just as closed minded and group thinkish as being the button wearing member of either party.

Talking to college kids is torture. I have never met one that didn’t think they knew it all. [/quote]

I agree with your first statement. Blind hatred in general is terribly close minded, which is why I display so rarely.

Talking to old fucks is torture. I have never met one that didn’t think they knew it all.

Oh, and I’m not in college, and have never taken a polisci course, and probably never will. Have you? What does taking a polisci course have to do with this thread?

I believe a T-man, politically, is one who looks at all views and opinions and then forms his own set of beliefs based on what he or she believes is the best information available. I do not believe a T-man, politically, is one who falls in line with everything their party says, or agrees 100% with every action the government takes, or DISagrees with every action, or has a blind hatred of a particular group, ect…

Do you agree, or do you disagree? I could care less if you think my arguments are invalid because I’m 17, all I care about is hearing your opinion on my argument so we can continue this discussion.