Study: Physically Weaker Hollywood Stars More Likely to be Left Wing

reply to post by ollncasino


so this gives you an excuse to think all liberals are weak and all republicans are strong........

did you choose to be a conservative because you were strong?

strong is good... whats good is whats right.... so being conservative must be the only right thing to be.... you win..

im not that political,, i dont care about gun ownership, if someone makes one and you want to buy one great.

also if every human in the world was conservative... would there just be constant violence and aggression in the world?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by sonnny1
But "imposing" is all in the eye,of the beholder .

The study used upper body strength as a measure.

Physically stronger Hollywood action stars are more likely to be right wing.

Physically weaker Hollywood action stars are more likely to be liberals.

edit on 21-4-2012 by ollncasino because: clarify

Unfortunately,I believe this data is flawed.

From said article.

Using a sample of Hollywood stars they demonstrated that those actors known for their physical strength and formidability, among them Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris and Sylvester Stallone, were more likely to support military action.

When they decide to take ALL actors,or maybe Actors from around the world,and do this study,It might say a bit more. I would also like to see female actresses mixed into this study also.

There's also the fact that scientists are more liberal than the general population.

This is a fact.

But it could have bias as well (as I stated in previous post). How? Well, we all know that the educational institutions have a steady supply of liberal preachers. Might this have an influence?

Maybe all of the "science facts" bloat their ego and make em liberal? I mean, liberals are renowned for their arrogance and sense of entitlement. Maybe their ego needs to come down a few notches.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
its funny you even think about this kind of stuff in terms of a battle and war...... rights vs lefts... war.... who wins... strong vs. weak....

edit on 21-4-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

Not at all.

Stronger physcial males are presumably able to deter many aggressive situations before they occur.

The report makes the point that weaker males telephone the police to deal with aggressive situations for them.

One can only hope that the police who come to help weaker males haven't adopted the liberal mindset and reject the concept of "who wins... strong vs. weak".

It could be observed that the concept of talking about a problem, negotiation and compromise are pursued by those who are weaker because they don't have much choice.

How effective talking about a problem, negotiation and compromise are when the other side doesn't want to talk about a problem, negotiate and compromise is rather predictable.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
so this gives you an excuse to think all liberals are weak and all republicans are strong........

also if every human in the world was conservative... would there just be constant violence and aggression in the world?]

Probably much less violence and aggression.

Strength deters aggression.

Oh I thought it was brain power.
So, Yeah this makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by ImaFungi
its funny you even think about this kind of stuff in terms of a battle and war...... rights vs lefts... war.... who wins... strong vs. weak....

edit on 21-4-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

Not at all.

Stronger physcial males are presumably able to deter many aggressive situations before they occur.

The report makes the point that weaker males telephone the police to deal with aggressive situations for them.

One can only hope that the police who come to help weaker males haven't adopted the liberal mindset and reject the concept of "who wins... strong vs. weak".

It could be observed that the concept of talking about a problem, negotiation and compromise are pursued by those who are weaker because they don't have much choice.

How effective talking about a problem, negotiation and compromise are when the other side doesn't want to talk about a problem, negotiate and compromise is rather predictable.

true..... this is the evolution of life......... look at nature....... it adapted to be vicious, strong, sly, defensive, offensive .... animals that were small and weak perhaps developed other techniques like venom, or pointy scales etc...... humans worked together to survive in unity against nature for working together was easier and more prosperous then any other way..... we developed complex language and ways to explain and express our thoughts and feelings..... every once in a while a problem between humans escalates and there are a few options to settle it, of course depending on the variables and thoughts and emotions of the situation.... so if someone is going crazy at you instead of talking it out,,,, you should physically fight them to settle them down instead of calling the cops on them? i personally am asking... ive never called the cops in my life never plan on it,,,, if the person was really bugging out crazy, i would first try to talk to them, if they wanted to kill me then i would defend my self..... what would you do if the guy was twice your size and there was no way you could physically check him?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by ImaFungi
so this gives you an excuse to think all liberals are weak and all republicans are strong........

also if every human in the world was conservative... would there just be constant violence and aggression in the world?]

Probably much less violence and aggression.

Strength deters aggression.

strength deters agression?????

you were just saying that liberals, the ones without strength are against agression.... and that stronger males are more likely to be cool with aggressive warlike resolutions?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
strength deters agression?????

you were just saying that liberals, the ones without strength are against agression.... and that stronger males are more likely to be cool with aggressive warlike resolutions?

Strength deters agression from members of other groups.

Liberals perfer to talk about things... Which is a perfectly logical approach unless the aggressive male doesn't want to talk.

reply to post by dmac359


It seems like a good study to me. I'm sick of all these weak ass wussy liberals ruling us! It's time for CHANGE!

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by ImaFungi
strength deters agression?????

you were just saying that liberals, the ones without strength are against agression.... and that stronger males are more likely to be cool with aggressive warlike resolutions?

Strength deters agression from members of other groups.

Liberals perfer to talk about things... Which is a perfectly logical approach unless the aggressive male doesn't want to talk.

which is why in my post above i asked the question at the bottem of my blurb.....

true..... this is the evolution of life......... look at nature....... it adapted to be vicious, strong, sly, defensive, offensive .... animals that were small and weak perhaps developed other techniques like venom, or pointy scales etc...... humans worked together to survive in unity against nature for working together was easier and more prosperous then any other way..... we developed complex language and ways to explain and express our thoughts and feelings..... every once in a while a problem between humans escalates and there are a few options to settle it, of course depending on the variables and thoughts and emotions of the situation.... so if someone is going crazy at you instead of talking it out,,,, you should physically fight them to settle them down instead of calling the cops on them? i personally am asking... ive never called the cops in my life never plan on it,,,, if the person was really bugging out crazy, i would first try to talk to them, if they wanted to kill me then i would defend my self..... what would you do if the guy was twice your size and there was no way you could physically check him?

your answer will either be; theres noone you cant take........ or at least you will get wrecked doing the honorable not wussy thing.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
. what would you do if the guy was twice your size and there was no way you could physically check him?

I have never had to phone the police to deal with a violent situation for me.

I can't condemn anyone for doing so however.

It is true however that there is a certain inner conflict if liberals reject the use of physical strength to resolve a conflict situation but are happy to watch the police do so for them.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by ImaFungi
. what would you do if the guy was twice your size and there was no way you could physically check him?

I have never had to phone the police to deal with a violent situation for me.

I can't condemn anyone for doing so however.

It is true however that there is a certain inner conflict if liberals reject the use of physical strength to resolve a conflict situation but are happy to watch the police do so for them.

hm inner conflict im not sure....... the way i view it is.... people are comfortable and feel safe in the modern world,,,,,, everyone pays taxes for the protection of the police,,,, any problem from car stolen, someone breaks in your house,,, to some drunk guy at a bar wants to fight you...... you are a individual person living your life,, if it does happen that you have to deal with some guy who wants to fight you, why not use a service that is given to you to rightfully and lawfully punish the person with the problem........

to the law i think it is probably looked at the one starting the physical conflict as in the wrong....... using physical strength to resolve a conflict not praised as the right thing to do in the eyes of the law or the modern civil world....

i have known and heard of cases of people getting into fights,, some guy gets punched and smashes his head on the ground, the puncher goes to jail for the rest of his life.... over one moment,,, the rest of his life gone,, because instead of talking it out, he opted for physical conflict.

What you mean to say is that all the actors that take steroids are right wing....

I would assume idiots that abuse drugs to "fit in" would be right wing.

reply to post by ghoulardi


LOL I really dont care either way man, it's not like any of these right or left wing turds are going to do anything they say the will.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
to the law i think it is probably looked at the one starting the physical conflict as in the wrong....... using physical strength to resolve a conflict not praised as the right thing to do in the eyes of the law or the modern civil world....

Indeed. One however is perfectly at liberty to defend oneself and others who are attacked.

Men who are physically stronger are both more likely to deter such an attack and to be able to defend family and friends so attacked. Right wing men are more likely to be be physically stronger.

Telephoning the police is a logical thing to do but unless we all live beside a police station, we may have to wait some time before help arrives.

reply to post by ollncasino


ok true...... so your basically saying if theres a big guy around,, he will be able to deter a physical fight because of his size..... and this is the mentality of mutually assured destruction..... if someone is feaking out and getting physically dangerous,, if there is a big guy in the vicinity he can scare him into stopping or physically restrain him is what your saying.......

(sarcastic) well these situations are the most important moments in humans lives, this is what we should spend all our time worrying about and build our political systems and ideals around........

allot of scientists and inventors have been physically weak, but with the power of their mind changed the ways of the world, and brought along innovations that are now seen as necessities.,,..

Originally posted by jonnywhite
I think it's bull. I know a big guy and he's the biggest baby in the world. Fits right in with Obama and even far left-wingers.

Let's look at the evidence.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
ok true...... so your basically saying if theres a big guy around,, he will be able to deter a physical fight because of his size..... and this is the mentality of mutually assured destruction..... if someone is feaking out and getting physically dangerous,, if there is a big guy in the vicinity he can scare him into stopping or physically restrain him is what your saying.......

That is what I mean.

Aggression is much less likely when their is mutual fear between men.

When one party however wants to 'talk it out' while the other doesn't, then it isn't going to end well.