Why Conservatives Can’t Understand Liberals (and Vice Versa)
While we've been on controvercial subjects, why not this one.
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt says many people today live in a ‘moral matrix’.
Note these are the basics it is thought that might be hardwired into humans...some, anyway. Understand that as we grow up we adjust our understanding through experience and the demon temptations lingering in our brains.
Oh boy...this is gona be interesting...
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt says many people today live in a ‘moral matrix’.
Note these are the basics it is thought that might be hardwired into humans...some, anyway. Understand that as we grow up we adjust our understanding through experience and the demon temptations lingering in our brains.
Oh boy...this is gona be interesting...
Teacher: Students Crave Ethics Instruction
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/bl...
For a couple decades I was friends with a guy I enjoyed hanging out with. Even worked for the guy for a while. But, deep down he had what seemed to be a real anger, perhaps even a hatred for white people. He was a liberal. Last year I ended up just breaking ties with the guy. Was unfortunate because, if it weren't for that deep-seeded trouble that would occasionally pop up, he was a neat dude. Live and learn...
I noted bread production is calculated by the Pound also a monetary unit and not by the loaf (ers)
I laughed writing that thinking why AR you old scoundral The Definition of Objectivism is "Always Check Premises especially your own."
The terms I shall repeat are so over defined they have virtually no meaning and are useless. Perhaps a wall to hide behind?.
Add in the use of the original base definitions doesn't apply since it' snot two parties any more but one and the terms are doubly useless UNLESS it's as acting directions in a scripted play of sorts.
The last line is a cry of disgust and dispair.
If the country, it's voting segment at any rate, insist on getting all razzle dazzled with brillian BS and basing their decision on ....same, what, fairy tales more farfetched than any war story I ever heard or told....there is no point in using the terms.
so I'm determned to automatically redact them in the same manner i change 9.99 to 10.00 and Pre Owned to Second Hand. and Congressional so and so sez to 'another batch of intentional lies,"
The act like one party with one basic philosophy of government I shall treat them that way. They insist on be called left i will agree change it left over, used, unusable, discarded, trash and treat them that way.
Those that attempt to engae in discussion will concede to my definitions or go away I don't need to hear wasted meaningless useless words and they may treat me the same.
I am unique in one way only. I recognized what is real and what is not and did something about it. Successfully. Some others have picked up on it. That is good. Some others have added to and refined it and contributed in one or many ways. That was tremendous.
I looked at 1984 and saw that it wasn't good. All pigs may be equal and some more than others but I am not a pig. A pig could never make as many spelling mistakes as I do on it's best day.l
I'm a human, I recognize my own nature. Thank you 'Life' for making me that way. Responsible only to myself and only from when I went from formative years to adult hood. Right about time to get drafted or join up. Adult decision Numer One. Age 21 rolled around I'd been two years in active combat zones.and received a treat. Hey Pig we are going to make iyou a little more equal. You can vote. And I answered Hey Pigs. I'm a human being and you will never be equal ro or superior than me.
Really not all that unique -- At times, I can articulate the difference between a human being and a more equal pig. Why? Because I'm objective and recognized my own nature, fouond it useful and declared it good.
With no small assistance from this group and a lot of thanks from this human being.
missives, Michael. . you are unique! -- j
.
where they often don't fit. . it is, though, a fun set of
ideas. . objectivists might list a totally different set of
"moral foundations" -- pleasure/pain, advantage/
disadvantage, contribution/detraction and the like.
and, as freedomforall says, objectivists reject both
liberal and conservative positions. . but it is a good
article, for mental exercise! -- j
.
Lack of self awareness he says...isn't that what I've been saying? laughing so out loud!
I don't consider myself conservative, but I dislike the straw-men arguments that I hear about anyone.
It's a rough sketch, a base to build on, but you might consider a biological point of view where each cell in our bodies contains all the information it needs to survive so long as it gets the resources it needs...this includes your brain cells also so who's to say that how we could or should get along isn't built in. Just something to think about.
I agree on parenting, education, etc, etc. These things and our language, (the conotation of our words as opposed to the true meanings- What I call, progressive speak.) has been so degraded that it's rare that the children actually grow up to be "Conscious beings"...instead of the parasitical humanoids we see today. However, I have noticed throughout history that a subset of society, no matter how educated or how they have been brought up still end up like liberals and they usually end up in government, usurping values because they can not or do not want to create values.
I don't think he suggests any pre-destination here, but we do come with some instructions, in our cells, in our DNA...it's all what we do with it but in these days it's what we are allowed to do with our potential.
Not everyone is as obstinate, always reaching for the better, as we here at the gulch.
Moreover, we like to think that our own ethics are universal, natural, normal for all people. Everyone wants fairness. Everyone values loyalty. It just is not true. The Success of the WEIRD People is an anthropological study of eight different cultures contrasted with our own.
In the Ultimatum game, one party is given a largess with instructions to share whatever they want with the other party. If the other party feels that the split is inequitable, no one gets anything. In our society, most people draw the line at a 70-30 share. If the recipient does not get at least 30%, then no deal. Some other people are more rational in the pure market sense: any gain is better than nothing. Some other cultures feel that the distributor is under no obligation to share anything. Some people (especially in Russia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia) will engage in "altruistic punishment" where they would pay out from their own share without recompense to bring a loss to an unfair distributor.
(My comments here: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
It is interesting... On a related note, the blog "Intellectual Take Out" does offer a potpourri. Some of the claims are interesting, but false.
The article on "Science versus Scientism" is a echo of an old post-modernist claim. That it is offered there reflects the anti-intellectual tradition in conservatism. Also, that article conflates claims about "cave men" without naming who said those things. That view of "cave men" was the popular one, not the scientific one. And even if you could find a 19th century anthropologist or paleontologist who asserted it then, that view has long since been discredited. And it is the only example offered, as if one bad idea discredits science as "scientism." It only cites G. K. Chesterton, a clever guy with some interesting ideas of his own. Chesterton was no more correct as a scientist than were John Stuart Mill or Oscar Wilde.
At the detail level, the article about phrases from the Middle Ages was wrong about "red letter dates." The practice goes back to the Romans. We have their calendars painted on the walls of their villas, including "movable feasts." It is not called the Roman Catholic
Church for nothing. They did not invent red letter dates; they inherited them.
In other words, it is all nice to discuss, but mostly here, everyone is talking about their feelings, not the facts.
Broadly speaking, I think both sides do represent and 'live up to' my description, as my description stems from observation of policies supported and promulgated by each side.
think that I have to worry about why they can or
can't understand each other. What I think (from what I understand of Objectivism; I want to avoid
plagiarism or misrepresentation here) is that man
is born with a brain, and a "pleasure/pain" mechan-
ism, and the free will to focus his mind honestly
and consistently on the facts before him, or not
to do it. And this determines his character. (I
don't think it determines his whole personality,
such as excitability versus calmness, tenden-
cies to energy versus lethargy, loquacity versus
taciturnity, etc.--these may very well be inherited; but what he will get excited about, what he will get energetic about, what he will
talk a lot,or not, about, will depend on his "stan-
dard of value". And the standards of value will
depend on how honestly and consistently he
chooses to focus).--And in some people this
focusing, or failure to do so, results in a mixture
of political views which becomes "conservative",
and in others. "liberal".
"WE ALL DECLARE FOR LIBERTY; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name----liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names----liberty and tyranny."
-----Abraham Lincoln, 1864
I know liberals, I understand liberals, that is why I usually crush them in debates.
I know Islam and I know our enemy, which is why I would easily defeat them.
Liberals are much like the sociopath, or criminal in their mentality. The Criminal believes that everything they want belongs to them. But if you take from them using the same rational you are dealt with harshly.
Liberals I will state with great emphasis have a serious mental disorder. I will stand by that statement since there is NO liberal that can hold a logical fact based discussion. 100% of everything is emotionally based which is why I beat them. I play by their own rules until they cry, give up or decide to actually listen to fact.
Load more comments...