- Joined
- Oct 30, 2013
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 297
- Location
- Down in the holler
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I don't think lacking empathy is the correct way to interpret people's actions. While I'm sure there are some people who flat out don't care, I think the more accurate interpretation is simply that different people have differing views on how to effectively address other people's "less fortunate" situations.
When you come to me wanting the government to act like Robin Hood and then tell me a sad story, it doesn't mean I lack empathy when I reject it, but instead that I'm not interested in the government acting like Robin Hood, and I'm not moved to agree to it by a sad story.
Throwing out emotional appeals and then having them ignored by your opponent doesn't mean they lack empathy, but that your emotional appeal doesn't change a damn thing about their objection to your argument.
Yeah, it should be no big deal when people's homes are destroyed by a corporation blowing up like in West, Texas. That's what those people get for living close to a fertilizer plant...and kudos to the Texas legislature for subsequently making it even more difficult for people nearby schools and houses to find out what's in those plants!
And who cares about Bhopal, or the Exxon Valdez, or the BP gulf oil spill! If anyone was killed or injured or had their livelihoods ruined, that's what those people get for living nearby!
We already have solutions to those problems. Just like how we already have laws against murder, but for some reason liberals want to keep passing laws even if it's already a crime.
And murder isn't always murder, is it? If it were, then there would be no "stand your ground" laws.
That's an exaggeration. It's more accurate to say that we see taxes as a necessary evil, and that we should minimize the evil. Anarchists believe that taxes are an unnecessary evil.Yes. Libertarians hold that it is wrong to take money owned by other people in order to distribute it to the less fortunate. They see this as the wrong way to address the problem. They hold that ends (helping the poor) don't justify the means (taking other people's money).
Your graph shows very little difference between liberals and conservatives. It seems like it could very easily be within the margin of error.It is not a matter of debate:
The more interested in politics a conservative is, the lower his (or her) level of empathy. Liberals move in the opposite direction: the more interested in politics they are, the more empathetic. Empathy, in case you’re wondering, is measured by responses to 28 statements in the “Davis Interpersonal Reactivity Index,” including “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me,” “I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the ‘other guy’s’ point of view,” and “Sometimes I don’t feel very sorry for other people when they are having problems.”
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes....limits-of-empathy/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
I dont give a **** if it is or not... sometimes it needs to.
Um, no, the difference is very significant....and the error bands are right there for you to see.Your graph shows very little difference between liberals and conservatives. It seems like it could very easily be within the margin of error.
Maybe we're looking at two different graphs. The conservatives scored around 3.6 and the liberals scored around 3.8. That's about a 5% difference. BFD.Um, no, the difference is very significant....and the error bands are right there for you to see.
Maybe you need to review the graph.....and understand what "significant" means....after you recheck you math.Maybe we're looking at two different graphs. The conservatives scored around 3.6 and the liberals scored around 3.8. That's about a 5% difference. BFD.
I was the first person from my high school to get a perfect score at a math meet. I know how to read a simple graph. Did you even look at the numbers on the left? That's the vertical portion of the graph.Maybe you need to review the graph.....and understand what "significant" means....after you recheck you math.
But then anyone who claims "only 1% of voters are "sensible"" is, IMHO, operating with a very different analytic method, so it is to be expected.....I suppose.
Depends how far beyond the graph the vertical scale goes - if 2.00 to 4.00 is the entire range, then the difference is significant.I was the first person from my high school to get a perfect score at a math meet. I know how to read a simple graph. Did you even look at the numbers on the left? That's the vertical portion of the graph.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?