Politicslibertyfairness

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 05:25 PM

Liberals vs Conservatives poll on liberty vs. fairness

If you are conservative, do you think liberals understand liberty? If a liberal, do you think conservatives understand fairness?
8 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
I am a conservative - liberals do not understand liberty.
1 (13%)
I am a conservative - liberals sometimes understand liberty.
2 (25%)
I am a conservative - liberals usually understand liberty.
0 (0%)
I am a conservative - liberals understand liberty.
0 (0%)
I am a liberal - conservatives do not understand fairness.
1 (13%)
I am a liberal - conservatives sometimes understand fairness.
0 (0%)
I am a liberal - conservatives usually understand fairness.
0 (0%)
I am a liberal - conservatives understand fairness.
0 (0%)
I am neither liberal or conservative.
4 (50%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

53 replies, 3589 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 53 replies Author Time Post
Reply Liberals vs Conservatives poll on liberty vs. fairness (Original post)
joesanjose Jan 2015 OP
Granny Jan 2015 #1
graham4anything4HC45 Jan 2015 #2
Gamle-ged Jan 2015 #22
Dexter Morgan Jan 2015 #4
docgeezer Jan 2015 #8
Gamle-ged Jan 2015 #23
nopoliticalsaviors Jan 2015 #13
Dexter Morgan Jan 2015 #15
nopoliticalsaviors Jan 2015 #16
Dexter Morgan Jan 2015 #19
nopoliticalsaviors Jan 2015 #29
Dexter Morgan Jan 2015 #30
MoreCowbell Jan 2015 #50
MoreCowbell Jan 2015 #49
Gamle-ged Jan 2015 #24
liberalguy Jan 2015 #41
Doctor_R Jan 2015 #5
docgeezer Jan 2015 #12
orson Jan 2015 #14
Bo Diddley Jan 2015 #27
kc_tim Jan 2015 #3
ol geezer Jan 2015 #6
Argentina Jan 2015 #11
Defiant11 Jan 2015 #20
Valishin Jan 2015 #7
Slow Slicing Jan 2015 #9
Magyar Jan 2015 #10
joesanjose Jan 2015 #17
PowerGrl Jan 2015 #18
liberalguy Jan 2015 #21
joesanjose Jan 2015 #25
liberalguy Jan 2015 #26
joesanjose Jan 2015 #32
liberalguy Jan 2015 #34
joesanjose Jan 2015 #35
liberalguy Jan 2015 #36
joesanjose Jan 2015 #37
liberalguy Jan 2015 #38
Nixons_Ghost Jan 2015 #28
southernwriter Jan 2015 #31
joesanjose Jan 2015 #33
johnaries01 Jan 2015 #40
joesanjose Jan 2015 #42
johnaries01 Jan 2015 #39
joesanjose Jan 2015 #43
liberalguy Jan 2015 #44
joesanjose Jan 2015 #45
liberalguy Jan 2015 #46
joesanjose Jan 2015 #47
liberalguy Jan 2015 #48
joesanjose Jan 2015 #51
liberalguy Jan 2015 #52
joesanjose Jan 2015 #53

Response to joesanjose (Original post)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 05:43 PM

1. The individualistic perspective that cons take means that they value liberty over all, because

they assume that the system is fair, or at least, fair to people who look like them.
For instance, those who are killed by cops are always to blame, and the police never are.
They "think" this because they assume they would never be subject to unfair law enforcement because the system is ok and they, themselves, are perfect.

Cons believe it is a wonderful "liberty" that Americans are "free" to live and starve on the street while some have too much. The fairness of the situation does not enter into the equation.

Because, they as individuals, are perfect.
There is no "commons" or responsibility to others. Everyone sinks or swims on their own.

That is freedom.

Fairness be damned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Granny (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 06:01 PM

2. astute

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything4HC45 (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 12:10 PM

22. I'm thinking it's more "asstoot" but opinions may vary... ☺

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Granny (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 06:27 PM

4. Responsibility for myself and my family ,unlike liberals who need to be looked after..

Our society has developed an entitlement mentality: we feel we are ‘owed’ something simply because we exist. This sense of entitlement is the result of decades of deliberately implemented policy by people who have embraced the Marxist ideal. They have been trying to change our society, our culture. They call this process of directed change ‘social engineering.’ The goal is to create the ‘ideal’ society by making citizens who will embrace their ideas for how we should all live.
=====snip=======
These people promise ‘equality’ and ‘fairness,’ but they are selling a deception. They know they cannot deliver on these promises. It is impossible. Besides, they do not even believe in these things. Look at how they never apply their ideas to themselves. That’s because they think themselves above the masses. This is clear testimony that they do not believe in equality. The reason they make these promises is because they understand human greed (and the tendency toward sloth). All they have to do is convince you they can deliver on a lie and they know you will gladly sell your liberty. The problem is, you are the one actually paying to make yourself into a slave. Make no mistake about this: once you accept the lie, and you give your political voice to those who promise to take from others and give to you, you are their slave. You are also equally as guilty of their crimes.

http://theoyl.com/2013/11/14/truth-the-fatal-flaw-in-the-notion-of-fairnessequality-marxism/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 06:36 PM

8. An excellent analysis!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to docgeezer (Reply #8)


Response to Dexter Morgan (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 07:53 PM

13. Don't embarrass yourself further...

that there are people here who would actually nod their head in agreement with your drivel is laughable. You have ZERO clue what Marx was about and you prove it with each ignorant post you make. Marx is a critique on capital and capitalism and a damn good one. Marx is a guide for the working class and nothing more. That you use Marx in your drivel while accepting your ignorance as "freedom" is even more laughable. The things you and others attribute to Marx are far from reality.

Marx represents the working class and working class people having more control of their own destiny rather than their lives be in the hands of a minority ruling class of capitalist thieves and bosses. It's that simple.

You say "The goal of Marxists is to create the ‘ideal’ society by making citizens who will embrace their ideas for how we should all live."

What a bunch of horseshit. That is the exact goal of the ruling class and their capitalist lapdogs. Just listen to the media, wall street, and their lapdogs on "both sides" of the political spectrum. People and workers need to be "retrained" for the new global capitalist economy. People need to align themselves with the "demand of the capitalist markets" or they will be left behind. The workers need to do this and the people need to that to meet the demands of the capitalist economy and the "bosses quota." Talk about fucking reeducation camps. Fuck all that Dex. The people and the workers are fine the way they are. What they need is control of their destiny .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nopoliticalsaviors (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 08:31 PM

15. Bullcrap...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 09:36 PM

16. Very well thought out reply Dex...

I must say I expected a bit more from such a "prolific purveyor of truths."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nopoliticalsaviors (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 11:42 AM

19. Ok i will try better..

I lived in a country who used Marxist ideals and it was a miserable little country,everybody poor ,except for the rich leaders telling us how everything was fair....
I came to America 30 years ago with nothing,started working and making money.The more skills i had the more money i earned in all that time i never cared what the rich people were doing or how much money they made,never cared about the capitalist thieves never cared about wall st,just worked my ass off.
To cut a long story short i retired when i was 50 nobody tried to keep me down rather bosses were happy to pay me more money if i made them more money.
My older brother still lives in that country in a 2 bedroom rental apt with his wife and 4 kids has no money (i send him some) and will never be able to retire his kids will work in menial jobs for the rest of their lives cause education is unaffordable .
So when i hear people tell me how wonderful Marxism or how great Communism is cause it makes everything fair ,it makes me sick to my stomach...It all sounds good on paper but in reality it does not work..
The world will never be a fair place and anybody that tries to make it fair always ends up making it worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:18 PM

29. Your personal situation is subjective and irrelevent to the discussion...

and working class politics. Further, these kinds of stories are well worn out nonsense and usually nothing more than fabricated fables and a known tactic to try and shut down discussion of the savage inequalities foisted upon the majority of working class people by capitalism and all its tentacles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nopoliticalsaviors (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:35 PM

30. Ok i will go back to my original post...Bullcrap...As you only believe what you want to believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 02:32 AM

50. I sometimes get the impression that....

Carl Jr. doesn't really believe it himself. He posts to talk himself into it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nopoliticalsaviors (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 02:30 AM

49. Face it......

you lost, again. Just....deal with it.

mmm-kay?

Talk about ice cream cones, or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nopoliticalsaviors (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 12:17 PM

24. 😁

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 07:55 PM

41. Conservatives don't understand citizenship. Exhibit #1 nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Granny (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 06:28 PM

5. Dr. Ben Carson is a conservative.

Does he think "the system is fair, or at least, fair to people who look like them?" Of course he does.

"...some have too much." <---- Who has "too much" and who gets to decide what "too much" is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Granny (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 07:50 PM

12. Of course conservatives would value liberty.

They value it because they do not accept the authority of a subset of humanity (government) to direct their thoughts or actions. Most of them, at least those that I know, accept the necessity of acting within some boundaries of behavior in order to live in proximity to others, i.e., participate in a 'society'. They generally understand that they are not perfect.

My view of liberalism is that it is a philosophy that denies value to individuals beyond their value as replaceable, and therefore expendable, elements of a collective whose behavior is directed by a ruling elite that determines what is 'good' and 'fair'. The ruling elite may not be questioned, only obeyed, because it is infallible by definition.

I have found that conservatives/libertarians, in general, do not want people to starve on the street, and contribute money and time to various organizations that provide relief, and they do this of their own free will. In contrast, I have found that many liberals prefer to shift this responsibility to others through the coercive power of government.

I believe that, based on the stated opinions of my conservative friends, most conservatives do not believe that those who are killed by cops are always to blame. Based on what I have read on this and other discussion sites, it seems that too many liberals believe just the opposite, that those who are killed by cops are always innocent victims, and all cops are bloodthirsty villains. Surely you must realize, for example, that the terrorists that were shot by the police in France brought that violent death upon themselves by shooting innocent people. I have also seen news articles about police shootings that were obviously unjustified. It's not a perfect world, and there are people with and without badges who do bad things.

Finally, you may have noticed that I have tried to avoid saying or implying that all conservatives are good or all liberals are bad. There are exceptions, probably many exceptions. To ascribe a repugnant characteristic to a group and say 'they're all' that way is bigotry, in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to docgeezer (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 08:07 PM

14. Most conservatives are Presbyterians at heart.

If you're rich it's because God loves you. The richer you are the more he loves you. Fairness never enters in to it because it's all according to god's plan. The elect are born that way. How can it not be fair?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Granny (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 02:48 PM

27. With a name like Granny and the post you've just left us

 

I must assume you are recalling the cave-man (woman?) days when you were young...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Original post)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 06:23 PM

3. Liberty is fairness

Liberals cannot understand fairness, because they do not understand liberty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Original post)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 06:32 PM

6. Conservatives do not understand liberty either.

They do not recognize that their 'liberty' ends at someone elses nose. If their liberty infringes on someone' elses liberty, to bad, so be it. Fair is only fair to them, not the other person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ol geezer (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 07:15 PM

11. Right on!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ol geezer (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 11:48 AM

20. The problem with liberals is, they don't know where their nose ends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Original post)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 06:33 PM

7. Liberty is fairness

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Original post)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 06:37 PM

9. I don't believe there is an objective liberty or fairness.

Debating definitions may be fun, but it doesn't mean anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Original post)

Wed Jan 14, 2015, 07:01 PM

10. Too many choices.

I have trouble just buying socks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Original post)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 01:16 AM

17. Incredible happy 50% replied they aren't con or lib. Be my friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Original post)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 01:17 AM

18. Define fairness

Who gets to determine the fairness line and what aspects of an individual's life does it impact? Does fair only mean fair taxation? Maybe fair housing? Is it fair to infringe on another's right to liberty? Honestly, the term fairness is vague. I will support equal opportunity where individual liberty is paramount.

Either way, I did not vote in the poll. Ok. So I went back and voted because I noticed the last option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Original post)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 12:05 PM

21. I don't think conservatives understand liberty.

 

Liberty is not synonymous with insecurity. You aren't more free without medical insurance, you're in peril, and that vulnerability constrains your actions; it is the opposite of liberty.

The conservative conception of "liberty" is anarchy; the absence of government... except as a flag to worship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 01:47 PM

25. I'm not clear.

You seem to use a lot of 'negative' terms in your description of your opinions. For instance "Liberty is not synonymous with insecurity".

Debate is centered around categorization and setting up 'venn diagrams' of thought patterns. By using two negatives, the term 'not' and 'insecurity' as opposed to security, You're working outside of a set of overlapping venn diagrams. As a reader, I don't have an understanding of what you are trying to say, other than what you think something is 'not'.

Is there a synonym for insecurity? If so, what does it matter? Etc.

I'm bringing this up because I feel like you have a good point, but I can't quite make it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 02:39 PM

26. Illustrated by common rhetoric

 

"I hate Obamacare because freedom! because liberty!"

The mandatory premise is that being uninsured is a net positive in terms of liberty - a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word means.

A person with maximal liberty lacks external constraints on his or her choices. Some of those considerations are resources (i.e. money), health or ability. The least intrusive consideration is usually the law.

One with unmet basic needs is not free. Taking away her food stamps doesn't create freedom, except perhaps for those who chafe that they are not empowered to assure another's misery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 05:02 PM

32. freedom vs. liberty

I think the words are separate for a reason. What you seem to be bringing up is liberty without constraint, which I think is more of a libertarian view.

It is questionable how much freedom a person who works two jobs to make ends meet actually has, especially when they could have had a better paying job if those jobs weren't shipping overseas.

As a liberal, how can you believe that a centralized group can determine what is appropriate for 'fair' distribution? Why do you trust government to do this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 05:40 PM

34. I sidestepped the OP's framing of "fair" for a reason.

 

I don't think that liberals or conservatives have any particular advantage in "fairness".

I do think that liberals have a better grasp of the concepts of "justice", "citizenship", "freedom" and "liberty".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 05:51 PM

35. I am the OP, that's why I am asking you...

because the studies show that fairness and liberty is perceived differently in liberals vs. conservatives. Since you are the 'liberalguy' by name, I thought I would ask you in more detail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 06:45 PM

36. I'd be interested to see which studies you refer to.

 

"fairness", in my experience isn't the main differentiator.

The main difference is willingness to reconsider opinions in light of new information.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberals-and-conservatives-dont-just-vote-differently-they-think-differently/2012/04/12/gIQAzb1kDT_story.html

Compare this with a different irrationality: refusing to admit that humans are a product of evolution, a chief point of denial for the religious right. In a recent poll, just 43 percent of tea party adherents accepted the established science here. Yet unlike the vaccine issue, this denial is anything but new and trendy; it is well over 100 years old. The state of Tennessee is even hearkening back to the days of the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, more than 85 years ago. It just passed a bill that will weaken the teaching of evolution.

Such are some of the probable consequences of openness, or the lack thereof.

Now consider another related trait implicated in our divide over reality: the “need for cognitive closure.” This describes discomfort with uncertainty and a desire to resolve it into a firm belief. Someone with a high need for closure tends to seize on a piece of information that dispels doubt or ambiguity, and then freeze, refusing to consider new information. Those who have this trait can also be expected to spend less time processing information than those who are driven by different motivations, such as achieving accuracy.

A number of studies show that conservatives tend to have a greater need for closure than do liberals, which is precisely what you would expect in light of the strong relationship between liberalism and openness. “The finding is very robust,” explained Arie Kruglanski, a University of Maryland psychologist who has pioneered research in this area and worked to develop a scale for measuring the need for closure.

The trait is assessed based on responses to survey statements such as “I dislike questions which could be answered in many different ways” and “In most social conflicts, I can easily see which side is right and which is wrong.”

Anti-evolutionists have been found to score higher on the need for closure. And in the global-warming debate, tea party followers not only strongly deny the science but also tend to say that they “do not need any more information” about the issue.

In my day job, I'm an advocate for people with developmental disabilities. I see little difference between attitudes of conservatives and liberals with regard to that issue. I don't see major differing definitions of fairness.

Where we disagree is in the definition of reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 06:56 PM

37. Yeah, I'm familiar with Jonathan Haight,

I've actually connected with him, was trying to get him to work for my company. If you understand his material, you then know where the question came from.

Your quote is regarding the religious right, do you feel there is a difference between the religious right and conservatives?

By saying 'definition of reality' you are saying your reality is more relevant than someone else's. Do you really feel your definition of reality is pure?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 07:17 PM

38. I don't think that religion creates this psychology.

 

I think the psychology forces people to gravitate to fundamentalism (christian or otherwise).... even a fundamental misunderstanding, i.e. "Jesus hates gays.". In no other realm of human life is this embracing of dogma so rewarded.

My definition of reality IS pure... until someone shows me compelling evidence to the contrary, at which point, I'll change my opinion. Absent that willingness, there is no reality, only belief.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Original post)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 03:25 PM

28. Liberty is a mystery....

To the major parties. Libertarians have it down pat and usually blow the doors off the regular politi-martians in terms of knowledge of the Constitution.

Both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party are in the bag for government control over the everyday life of Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Original post)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:47 PM

31. Broadbrushes don't work.

Some liberals don't understand what it truly means to be fair, equal, free, etc.

Some conservatives are the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernwriter (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 05:04 PM

33. The reason I asked this broad question...

is that there are more studies showing that liberals have a bias toward fairness, and conservatives toward liberty. The theory is that previous traumas or upbringing by certain types of trauma create a bias that is then taken advantage of by political parties. They have been able to predict if someone is liberal or conservative by a questionnaire asking only questions about liberty and fairness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 07:40 PM

40. Why must they be exclusive?

Can't you be Free to be Fair? Can't you be Fair and Free?

I think this premise is severely flawed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnaries01 (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 11:23 PM

42. Definition of Exclusive

You are asking if they can be exclusive, but then you create a dependency between them, so they are no longer exclusive. I'm not sure of your point.

It's not that fairness and liberty are exclusive, they co-exist and are constrained by each other. Thought patterns show that the more importance people put on fairness, they have a tendency to identify with liberal thought. People who identify with liberty, have a tendency to identify with conservative thought. Well, non-religious conservative thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Original post)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 07:34 PM

39. I'm a Liberal, I think that Conservatives sometimes understand "fairness".

At least, I'm sure there is some Conservative somewhere who understands it. None here, or that I have ever met. Because if they did, they would probably be a Liberal. But I believe in never saying "never", so there must be one out there, somewhere....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnaries01 (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 15, 2015, 11:29 PM

43. It's interesting

that so far more liberals have voted that 'absolutely' conservatives do not understand fairness, while more conservatives have voted that 'a few' liberals do not understand liberty.

I agree with you that there are no absolutes, but as a liberal, with a disposition toward fairness, do you think maybe your fellow liberals judge conservatives too harshly because they don't align with the liberal expectations of fairness?

In other words, is liberalism and conservatism just another primitive form of tribal warfare wrapped by super pacs and books instead of spears?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Reply #43)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 11:04 AM

44. I judge them harshly because they don't align with the conservative expectation of liberty.

 

Conservatism isn't a political philosophy, it's a psychology.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/01/07/3608821/congress-20-week-abortion/

To Republicans, liberty is the freedom to stop people from doing things you disapprove of.

As the Jonathan Haidt video upthread shows, conservatives and liberals place a nearly equal importance on fairness (even if we might not agree on what constitutes fairness). Where we disagree is on areas of authority, ingroup and purity.



To a conservative, there can be nothing more intolerable than their daughter having sex with a dirty pot smoking hippie.

Conservatives don't understand that freedom and liberty mean that people should be free to make their own choices, and that failure to comply doesn't make them an enemy. Only a psychology of conservatism could have created paranoia like that exhibited by Nixon and J Edgar Hoover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #44)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 03:57 PM

45. That's not what the graph shows.

The graph shows that liberals place more emphasis on fairness and safety. Conservatives are more balanced in their approach across the five 'moralities'. Haight has since increased that to six, he included 'loyalty'.

Assuming conservatism is a psychology in your definition, isn't liberalism? Therefore, isn't it a limited view of life, just as conservatism is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Reply #45)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 05:25 PM

46. If you are incapable of changing it, it is not a philosophy.

 

Liberals belief systems are subject to constant re-evaluation and self-scrutiny. Conservatives consider that a weakness. Belief in creation for instance, is "principled".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #46)

Fri Jan 16, 2015, 10:19 PM

47. Biased?

I see liberal thought as limited and simple as conservative thought. Just a different color of the same rainbow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Reply #47)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 12:26 AM

48. Of course you do. The defining feature of conservatism is closed thinking.

 

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/16/0146167212439213.abstract?rss=1

http://newswire.uark.edu/articles/18125/using-less-effort-to-think-opinions-lean-more-conservative

In large measure, we're unable to escape what we are. If you were to accuse me of being indecisive and unprincipled*, you'd arguably be correct - in exactly the same way that I accuse conservatives of being willfully ignorant.

* As the term "principled" is used to describe George Bush. For instance. In the words of Steven Colbert:
The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change; this man's beliefs never will.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/stephencolbert/a/colbertbush_2.htm
... which by the way was the best celebrity roast in the history of history.

I'd like you to respond to the basic point of my previous post: Can an unexamined, unchanging approach to new information and life in general be considered a philosophy?

Even a houseplant is smart enough to bend toward the light, regardless of which direction it is coming from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 03:02 AM

51. Of course I do?

You think I'm conservative? I've donated to the Obama campaign twice. So you assume because I showed the slightest challenge to your thought process, you label me as your enemy?

Evidently you're the one who is not open minded enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joesanjose (Reply #51)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 12:02 PM

52. My evidence:

 

1) Who said "enemy"? Only a very ingroup motivated thinker would jump to that conclusion.
2) I think it's impossible for any open thinker to look at the political landscape and conclude that both sides are to blame, or that the truth must lie somewhere in between.
3) The research that I provided shows that the importance of fairness is not tremendously different between liberals and conservatives. We place similar emphasis on fairness and care/harm. I provided the video in which Mr Haidt explained that finding, yet you proceed without any apparent recognition, or even meaningful acknowledgement, of the direct contradiction.
4) You refer to "the research" yet don't provide it.
5) To anyone who accepts that liberals and conservatives see the importance of care/harm and fairness similarly, it should be no surprise that the only meaningful piece of legislation produced by the last congress was a tax deferred savings program for permanently disabled kids.
6) "Liberty" has nothing to do with the conservative moral compass. "Liberty" is language that has been co-opted to be a synonym of "low taxes" + "more guns". Don't believe me? Ask a conservative if he believes women should be free to have abortions. Ask them if hippies have a right to burn a flag. Ask them about Trayvon Martin... paramilitary jack booted thugs are okay if they're killing evildoers the other team apparently. I don't know any Obama donors who buy into the conservative framing of "liberty", to us, it is patently obvious bullshit.
6) Of course I could be shown to be wrong, I'm unprincipled like that, but "I'm an Obama donor" is just one piece of evidence, an outlying one at that, in contradiction to the rest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #52)

Sat Jan 17, 2015, 11:08 PM

53. uh...

1. Your vitriolic attitudes and judgement says enemy. Just because you aren't aware of it, doesn't mean everyone else isn't.
2. There aren't two 'sides'. That's your problem. There are other perspectives than liberal and conservative, and combinations thereof.
3. No, actually you misinterpreted research that you provided. I've tried to hire the guy you are referencing, and I can assure you are reading his data incorrectly.
4. We couldn't get past Haidt's simple graph without your intolerance showing through, how can I expect you to accepting of any other data?
5. Uh, ok.
6. If you actually read Haidt, which I don't think you have, he refers to liberty as a morality, so your reference to a 'moral compass' just indicates to me you haven't done your homework.
7. You listed six twice. So yes, I've shown you to be wrong twice.

Dude, wake up from your anger. You're misinterpreting the world. You're just declaring war on conservatives, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. We need less liberals and conservatives. Look at the poll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicslibertyfairness