• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why liberals are better than conservatives

LiberalAvenger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I thought I would throw out some red meat for the plutocracy conservatives here.

I will say that I don't have anything against real conservatives. In fact I agree with much of what they say. An example of a real conservative would be Danarhea, OK?

So, radical conservatives feel free to post from your favorite conservative sites.

Let's fight.:gunsmilie :poke:boxer

Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative | | AlterNet
 
“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”

Also, Dan is hardly what could be called a "real conservative".

And your article is couched in fallacy.

And of course, when I heard about this research, my instant reaction was to say, "But fairness and harm are more important! We were right all along! This proves it -- liberal values are better!"

But, being someone who places a strong ethical value on fairness -- I realize that of course I'm going to say that. After all, those are my values. Of course I think they're better. And -- again, being someone who highly values fairness -- I realize that conservatives are going to say the exact same thing. "But authority and loyalty are more important! This proves it! Conservative values are better!"
WTF is this guy putting in his crackpipe. This ended my reading of the article. No need to continue to read useless drivvel by a
As a dyed-in-the-wool liberal -- the offspring of a union organizer and an early-adopter feminist, taken to peace marches and McGovern rallies at a tender age -- this idea instantly made sense to me. It illuminates a lot of weird dark corners about politics, particularly the rancorous and apparently unsolvable nature of many political conflicts. When liberals and conservatives debate the burning issues of the day -- whether it's immigration or marriage equality, global warming or health care reform -- we often wind up talking at cross-purposes, and the conversations go around in increasingly belligerent circles ... because we're not starting with the same ethical foundations.
 
Also, Dan is hardly what could be called a "real conservative".

And your article is couched in fallacy.


WTF is this guy putting in his crackpipe. This ended my reading of the article. No need to continue to read useless drivvel by a

dan is SANE and is, to me, a real conservative. he's the kind of person who will debate and discuss without rancor. he also manages to think for himself, which is a rare quality.
 
dan is SANE and is, to me, a real conservative. he's the kind of person who will debate and discuss without rancor. he also manages to think for himself, which is a rare quality.

You mean he sometimes agrees with liberals and will insult/attack some conservatives and conservative ideas.
 
Dan is a phony conservative the same way Reagan was.
 
Ouch, I thought it was an instant axe for a Conservative to diss St. Gipper

Redress is trying to be witty and get me to diss Reagan. Dan is no Reagan, and Redress is no honest positer on Reagan.
 
This article is full of **** and views everything in black and white and this is coming from someone who hates both people with pure red hatred.
 
Last edited:
I read the article but honestly, as I scrolled down these things jumped out at me and straight up (my bad...) caused me to invalidate the guys writing.

"But according to this research, these basic values -- fairness, harm, loyalty, authority and purity -- exist in all of us, at least to some degree, in every non-sociopathic human being."

Fairness. Please. There are two valid uses of the word 'fair'. Describing mild weather and crappy carnivals with cheap ride and bad food. LIFE is not 'fair'. Anyone that lives with that ideal is a 'moran'. (see...I read the article).

People that believe in 'fairness' are typically whiney little bitches that REALLY dont mean fair...they mean utopian ideals where everyone loves everyone, treats everyone well, everyone is committed to the same principles and everyone gets along in a happy little fairy tale fantasy, and when reality fails (as it invariably does) in the name of 'fairness' we strip the fruit of the hard working person and give it to the failures. Its Lennons "Imagine" in some sort of fantasy "real life" that actually works. It ignores the reality of human nature, weakness, etc.

Heres the thing. I desperately want for other people to succeed. I dedicate a fair amount of my life in both paid and pro-bono capacity working toward that. But I believe people accomplish success by following Banduras model of hand-up enhanced self-efficacy...not by some government led handout model that keeps people needy and dependent. And I have seen MANY take advantage of hand-up programs and become extraordinarily successful. Most people take handout programs and stay stuck.

Now who is truly loving...caring...and humane...the conservative individual that offers hope, inspiration and opportunity while expecting others to do for themselves or the liberal individual who believes in fairness and in taking care of everyone.

And as LL and I were I believe agreeing to earlier...we pretty much ALL believe in the same things...just not necessarily how those things are acheived.
 
I thought I would throw out some red meat for the plutocracy conservatives here.

I will say that I don't have anything against real conservatives. In fact I agree with much of what they say. An example of a real conservative would be Danarhea, OK?

So, radical conservatives feel free to post from your favorite conservative sites.

Let's fight.:gunsmilie :poke:boxer

Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative | | AlterNet

fleas will always claim its better than being a dog. someone else provides their food and transportation
 
ZOMG, that guy uses Jon Haidt's 5 values study. That's one of my favorite political studies ever, even though I think it's a very imperfect one.

But when Haidt himself presented the study, he emphasized the point that what he found is proof of the fact that liberals will think they are better than conservatives, even though they are not, and that this is one of their biggest problems. Ironically, that is exactly what the link in the OP is doing here, using that same study. Haidt is a liberal himself, which helps explain the simplistic way he portrays conservativism - "authority" is hardly a term to describe what is a much more small-government ideology than liberalism, and I have no idea where "purity" comes in anywhere. But it's a fascinating study nonetheless, and more psychologists should really be looking into the psychological aspect of political ideology.
 
Well, I think the op also begs the question, "Who are the real Liberals?"
 
Okay, so the more I read this article the more I think it's just garbage.

Here's a particularly baffling excerpt:
The conservative value of authority has, at its very core, the idea that certain special people -- i.e., authority figures -- ought to be respected and obeyed more than others, and ought to have the right to tell other people what to do, and ought to have the power to enforce those dictums.

Not only is this not a conservative value, but this is something that conservatives are fiercely against, which they claim liberals are in favor of, and which many liberals are in favor of. I dunno how he got the idea that this is a "conservative value", but I suspect it has to do with first seeing the word and then using his own definition of it.

I hate it when people see words, and assume they mean what they want it to mean when it could mean any number of things. All five of the five values mentioned are perfect examples of this. Without access to the original study, I have no idea what any of them mean.
 
fleas will always claim its better than being a dog. someone else provides their food and transportation

Until they figure out that their dog is dying, and there are no other dogs in the neighborhood.;)
 
fleas will always claim its better than being a dog. someone else provides their food and transportation

The old time plantation owners had the same philosophy. In fact, they fought a war for those beliefs.
 
its partisan ****, doesn't matter which side its from, still smells bad
 
It's not the liberals or the conservatives that are better. It's anyone who is not an extreme version of either.
 
Godd morning Cappy:2wave:

I'm going to work in virginia beach today in the 100 degree heat and I don't have to pay a tqnning tax. Aiint life great.

Happy trails today.:2dance:
 
Godd morning Cappy:2wave:

I'm going to work in virginia beach today in the 100 degree heat and I don't have to pay a tqnning tax. Aiint life great.

Happy trails today.:2dance:


That's just because the liberals haven't thought of that yet....
 
I read the article but honestly, as I scrolled down these things jumped out at me and straight up (my bad...) caused me to invalidate the guys writing.

"But according to this research, these basic values -- fairness, harm, loyalty, authority and purity -- exist in all of us, at least to some degree, in every non-sociopathic human being."

Fairness. Please. There are two valid uses of the word 'fair'. Describing mild weather and crappy carnivals with cheap ride and bad food. LIFE is not 'fair'. Anyone that lives with that ideal is a 'moran'. (see...I read the article).

People that believe in 'fairness' are typically whiney little bitches that REALLY dont mean fair...they mean utopian ideals where everyone loves everyone, treats everyone well, everyone is committed to the same principles and everyone gets along in a happy little fairy tale fantasy, and when reality fails (as it invariably does) in the name of 'fairness' we strip the fruit of the hard working person and give it to the failures. Its Lennons "Imagine" in some sort of fantasy "real life" that actually works. It ignores the reality of human nature, weakness, etc.

Heres the thing. I desperately want for other people to succeed. I dedicate a fair amount of my life in both paid and pro-bono capacity working toward that. But I believe people accomplish success by following Banduras model of hand-up enhanced self-efficacy...not by some government led handout model that keeps people needy and dependent. And I have seen MANY take advantage of hand-up programs and become extraordinarily successful. Most people take handout programs and stay stuck.

Now who is truly loving...caring...and humane...the conservative individual that offers hope, inspiration and opportunity while expecting others to do for themselves or the liberal individual who believes in fairness and in taking care of everyone.

And as LL and I were I believe agreeing to earlier...we pretty much ALL believe in the same things...just not necessarily how those things are acheived.

Just curious about the amount of time you spend working for others to succeed. Would that be "fair" in the mild weather sense or "fair" in the crappy carnival sense? ;)
 
That's just because the liberals haven't thought of that yet....

I see you have crossed over and have become one of those types of, so called, conservatives who blame liberals for everything.

BTW, did you know that the US Navy has more admirals than ships? Do you realize how much money an admiral makes and how much pension they get? Now, if you are one of those deficit hawks don't you think getting rid of a few admirals would be a good way to cut the deficit instead of on the backs of the underclass? Talk to me.
 
I see you have crossed over and have become one of those types of, so called, conservatives who blame liberals for everything.

BTW, did you know that the US Navy has more admirals than ships? Do you realize how much money an admiral makes and how much pension they get? Now, if you are one of those deficit hawks don't you think getting rid of a few admirals would be a good way to cut the deficit instead of on the backs of the underclass? Talk to me.

The elderly are not the underclass. Liberals should have thought of the consequences before they instituted a ponzi scheme.
 
Just curious about the amount of time you spend working for others to succeed. Would that be "fair" in the mild weather sense or "fair" in the crappy carnival sense? ;)

Fair in the mild sense...good point...certainly not as in MY FAIR SHARE...a fair amount of time where I came typically means a 'decent' amount of time. Its more a unit of measure...not unlike 'pert near'...

But yeah...that was sorta like calling someone a moran for misspelling a word... good catch! :doh
 
Last edited:
The elderly are not the underclass. Liberals should have thought of the consequences before they instituted a ponzi scheme.

There are a lot of elderly people who belong to the underclass. They are not the only ones, though.

Where did you get elderly from? I did not mention them. Are we supposed to hate them too, for being socialistic parasites?
 
I see you have crossed over and have become one of those types of, so called, conservatives who blame liberals for everything.

BTW, did you know that the US Navy has more admirals than ships? Do you realize how much money an admiral makes and how much pension they get? Now, if you are one of those deficit hawks don't you think getting rid of a few admirals would be a good way to cut the deficit instead of on the backs of the underclass? Talk to me.

I'll jump in...not 'instead of'...no...But in addition to? Sure...the military can use some cuts. So can our congress. So can the social services.
 
Back
Top Bottom