I literally don't even know

http://volokh.com/2014/01/17/jonathan-haidt-psychology-politics/

So, a quick outline before you dive (I mean jump carefully. No broken necks, ya hear?). This article briefly summarizes a book. This book is written on conservatives vs. liberals, and why (now I had though I was the only one to notice this, silly me) conservatives seem to understand liberals better than the reverse. It gives five 'moral' principles ((1) care/harm, (2) fairness, (3) loyalty, (4) authority, and (5) sanctity), and claims that, whilst conservatives adhere, or value, each of them equally, liberals tend to value care and fairness the most. This creates a situation where conservatives can understand the base motivations for liberal though, but liberals find it difficult to reciprocate. You might see evidence of this in the liberal media's propensity to demonize conservatives as racist, super-christian bigots.


Anyway, I just want to see what a mostly liberal space makes of this.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 14, 2015, Original Post Date: Dec 14, 2015 ---

Just browsing the web (ok, not really) I found another article, and one bit really struck me as insightful:
"What we have here are two different forms of family-based morality. What links them to politics is a common understanding of the nation as a family, with the government as parent. Thus, it is natural for liberals to see it as the function of the government to help people in need and hence to sup-port social programs, while it is equally natural for conservatives to see the function of the government as requiring citizens to be self-disciplined and self-reliant and, therefore, to help themselves."

Anyway, here's the full article: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/467716.html It's engaging and really long. Really long.
Personally, this pretty sums up my view of the government: It's there the provide the things we can't provide on our own. That would be infrastructure, an army, police force, and fire dpt. and education. If there is to be a welfare system, it should be limited to people who are actively searching for a job, and can prove they are actively searching for a job. That basically sums it up, and that's all I need from the government to live: roads to get to work, safety from foreign powers (and as much safety as a police force can provide), and a fire department to prevent the city from burning down. Businesses can take care of the rest.

 

I definitely don't value them all equally.

While I would say that I probably tend to value fairness, loyalty, and care close to equally, sanctity is below them, and authority is definitely below that. It's completely BS to say that I can't understand people that value them all equally though.

Let's say that we have five fruits (Apples, oranges, bananas, pears, and kiwis). Say that I only like pears, apples, and oranges, but you like all five of the fruits. Does this mean that when you eat one of the fruits that I don't like, I'll be unable to fathom why you are doing so? No, it's easy to understand when someone likes or cares about something that you don't.

I think it's reasonable to say that many liberals don't realize what factors motivate conservatives, but it's untrue to say that they're unable to understand it.

TLR - I understand conservatives fine, I just disagree with them.

 

I would agree that some are capable of understanding the motivations, but there are some who aren't. These are generally the first to cry racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever, whereas the smarter ones usually think about whether it actually is or not, and then go from there.

 

Sure, there are definitely some who aren't.

To be fair, there are a lot of conservatives that are are racist/sexist/homophobic. But yeah, I agree with what you're saying; the smarter ones will realize there are definitely other conservatives that aren't like that and will assess a situation before automatically assuming that racism/sexism/homophobia is the case.

 

Define a lot, but admittedly there are some.

 

Statistically, I don't know how many are like that, which is why I just said, 'a lot.'

Out of every conservative person that I've met and heard the opinions of, there's been less than a handful of them that haven't been at least a bit homophobic/sexist. I will admit that racism seems to be less common, but still, it's definitely something that I tend to see from conservative people.

Obviously, my personal experiences are not justification to claim that any certain amount of them are sexist/homophobic/racist or that 'most' of them are, and I fully realize that there are many that are not; however, since the percentage of sexists/homophobes/racists is that high out of the conservatives that I've met, I can justifiably say that 'a lot' of them are racist/sexist/homophobic, since 'a lot' is a subjective term, no?

 

I don't know about you, but I'm a liberal who does my best to understand both sides of an argument before I get any strong opinions on the matter. On abortion, I've actually argued for AND against it. I understand that conservatives typically oppose it for reasons other than some fake "war on women". I've argued for and against immigration. I've argued for and against stronger military. I even find myself bringing up reasons why it would be okay to turn away gay costumers. I've made strong arguments against "Black Lives Matter" protesters but now find myself somewhere in the middle of the issue. The thing about "black lives matter" is that it took me a hefty amount of research and observations of both opinions before I could develop any major opinions of my own on it. Right now, I'm conflicted because I believe everyone is wrong in some way and they're going about the issue in the wrong way. Although, I am definitely still arguing against political correctness and feminists. I've looked at both sides of political correctness and feminism, and I just think conservatives are right on those issues...

I've done research on the pros and cons of marijuana. I know it's not "as bad" for you as other legal drugs, but you'd have to be really clueless to think it has no negative side effects. I've looked at both sides of the arguments on climate change (this is my favorite because now it's easy to debate on the issue against climate change deniers).

In the end, I typically find myself somewhere between moderate and liberal on the issues. Despite how I have conservative tendencies on immigration, my overall stance is still pretty moderate. I guess from my point of view it seems that facts have a liberal bias. But then again, maybe I just have a liberal bias.

Although, on the issue of gay rights, I find that it's usually older conservatives that hold real homophobic beliefs. The younger you go, the more "sensible" conservatives are on the issue of gay rights. I actually know many conservative peers who are okay with gay people.

 

That's why I asked how much 'a lot' is, and you've in no way answered my question. It also seems like you said that you can't make a judgment on conservatives

but then proceed to use it to justify a decision:

And just so you know, "a lot" means "a great quantity", which is normally interpreted as more than 50%.

If we're using your terms of homophobic and sexist, instead of dictionary ones:
noun
1.
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

Full Definition of sexism. 1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women.


I might say that of all the liberals I've met, all of them have an ability to reason that is inferior to my own, and many of my friends. Now I know that that's not true, and that my personal experience can't be used to justify a decision about all liberals, as I may have a slightly altered population with relation to the rest of the population, but I am justified in saying that Liberals have an inferior ability to reason.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 31, 2015, Original Post Date: Dec 31, 2015 ---

Oh good, I'm not the only one xD.

I want to know, when you say denier, do you make a distinction between those who flat-out deny that it's happening, or who deny that it's caused by humans, or deny that it's an issue?

 

Did you not understand what I said?

I said that I can't justifiably claim that any certain percentage or amount of conservatives are sexist/racist/homophobic and I by no means did so; however, I can justifiably claim that 'a lot' of them are, as I have met 'a lot' that are.

No, not really.

If we had a room full of 100 people, and there were, say, ten serial killers in the room, that would be considered 'a lot' of serial killers to be in a room of 100 people.

It's about perspective and the situation; there's often times where much less than %50 can be considered 'a lot.'

Why do you assume that "my terms" are not the dictionary ones? Those are essentially the definitions of sexism and homophobia that I use.

That's not the equivalent of what I said.

If you would want to say that, "a lot of liberals have an inferior ability to reason," instead of "liberals have an inferior ability to reason," then sure, you'd be justified in saying that.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 31, 2015, Original Post Date: Dec 31, 2015 ---

What exactly do you mean by "feminism"?

The definition of feminism is, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes."

Do you argue against the fundamental idea of feminism in that you don't think that both sexes deserve equality, or do you argue against the movement of feminism/the viewpoints most feminists hold?

 

Mostly those who deny that it's happening. Although, considering the timing being around our most usage of fossil fuels (and how we hit 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) and how quickly it's progressing, I'm surprised people still try to make a case for it being from non-human causes.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 31, 2015, Original Post Date: Dec 31, 2015 ---

Of course I believe in equality. The issue I take is that I just believe both sexes are relatively equal already in the United States and other western countries.

I may go on a slight rant, but that's only to explain my position. I'd rather not get into a lengthy discussion about this on this thread.

The wage gap has been debunked multiple times and people constantly complain about things like "objectification". Men are just as "objectified" in society as women are. It's just human nature. Humans love each other's bodies. What's wrong with that? If there is any kind of institutional sexual discrimination, then by all means try to fix that. But it seems, from my point of view, that most modern day western feminists don't have any real issues to bring forth. Unless you're living in China or Saudi Arabia, where women actually are treated awfully, then I don't think feminism seeks to improve anything.

 

It's been a long time... I must have forgotten this thread lol.

Because very few people exhibit unreasoning fear or antipathy towards homosexuals.Most dislike open practice of homosexuality because of their religious beliefs, which would be a reason.

Your statement was based off of your personal experience a lot of conservatives are homophobic etc. Mine was that based off of my personal experience, all liberals have an inferior ability to reason to my own.

I agree with skaros.

 

Come hang with me in the Deep South. Bonus if you're a straight white guy, since racist homophobes will assume you're one of them, and share their opinions with you freely.

Back to the article:

This is a blanket assumption he's making, which is certainly not always going to be true. The reason I've journeyed from conservative -> libertarian -> moderate liberal over the years is because I've been doing the very thing he says nobody does all along.

 

A) there's not a lot wrong with a generalization when we're talking about huge groups of people
B) What he's saying is pretty accurate. People are influenced, whether they know it or not, from birth. He doesn't say that you can't change political ideologies, just that you will be subconsciously biased.

 

I'd venture to guess that the majority of the scientific community has superior reasoning abilities to yours.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/12/lab_politics.html

Not surprising, really, as there's not a lot of room at the table for intelligent thought in the guns-and-bibles party.

 

Based on what evidence?

Heh. I actually read that article; it was pretty interesting. It went so far as to suggest that the reason that Scientists aren't found to be Republican because of politics, and the reason that scientists wholeheartedly support global warming is because it advances Democratic policies and ideals.

 

Based on the evidence that they're practicing scientists with degrees to match, and you don't.

They got it backwards, then, because the behavior of carbon dioxide is easily demonstrated, so the science is informing the liberal policy, not the other way around.

 

Aren't*

They're practicing science, and they have degrees. Hurrah for them.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 30, 2016, Original Post Date: Apr 30, 2016 ---

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/23068/

I'm not using this as an argument for or against climate change. This is to demonstrate what happens withing the scientific community when someone dares to challenge the idea of global warming. There are repercussions. That shouldn't happen in science. Ever. I don't care if someone is investigating whether the universe was born yesterday. They shouldn't be ridiculed. Their findings should be evaluated, and then accepted or denied. More experiments should be done. There shouldn't be any of this, where people's careers can be destroyed

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/04...affecting-my-quality-of-life-exclusive-video/

 

I'm actually curious to hear your opinion on global warming and climate change--would you be so kind as to oblige me?

 

Personally, I'm unsure, because everybody seems to be working under the premise that it is, in fact, happening, and anyone who says otherwise is crushed mercilessly.

I do know that we are well within the boundaries for life, in terms of CO2 levels, and that to feed a growing population, we need more crop growth, which would be benefited by a greenhouse process...

So really, I think that if it is, in fact, happening, it probably isn't a threat to humanity.

 

However, essentially all the data points to climate change being human-caused. When scientists make claims that are blatantly WRONG, they need to be exposed as bad science--we shouldn't waste claims investigating UFOs, or hostile aliens on Mars, or what-not.

That's not to mention that I don't know what the hell these sources are. Honestly, I can't tell if the first one is satire or not, and it's obviously biased. That being said, the SAME scientist stated that "it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres of irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust in the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

Your source blatantly takes quotes out of context. Besides, it doesn't even attempt to be unbiased, which is an obvious concern when dealing with journalism. Just as you condemn "liberal media," it's evident that both the college fix (and even worse), the climate depot, are I-don't-even-know levels of biased.