Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

[marsmellow]

I have no problem helping the poor and like doing it as a choice... and would give much more if the fucking govt would stay out of my pockets.

Conservatives say that if we reduce government spending on the poor, charity will fill the gap. The evidence shows they're wrong.

Based on research on giving to charity... Conservatives vs Libs... I probably give about twice more than you.

And according to the same research, you probably donate to churches, while I donate to charities that actually do something to improve the world.

Lets not forget it was your man obama who made the latest sacrifice of 30,000 new troops into a war. Why don't you trust him and his pals as much to protect you [and our friends] as you do to redistribute the wealth?

Where do you get the impression that Obama is "my man" and that I trust them? I don't. I probably criticize them just as much as I criticize republicans. I'm not a big fan of either party.

I'd really like to see some of you youngsters get a taste of the real world in the form of basic combat training... followed by active service

Fuck that. I wouldn't go, even if I was drafted. I'd rather go to prison.

On the other hand, if the USA was actually in danger, I would sign up for the military voluntarily. But we haven't been in any real danger since the Soviet Union collapsed. Terrorists are a joke. They're about as dangerous to the US as lightning strikes are.

but then the world is safe enough for you as it is... and the next time we get hit, you'll leave it to others do the dirty work for you...

If the world is safe, why do we need people to do this dirty work? We DON'T. That is my whole point. I don't care if there are people willing to do it or not. Afghans and Iraqis aren't a threat to me. So, I don't care. Don't do that "dirty work". I don't give a fuck. I'm against those wars to begin with.

 

[ebola?]

I'd really like to see some of you youngsters get a taste of the real world in the form of basic combat training...

It's truly disheartening commentary on the modern world that the "real world" is characterized by militarized violence. Perhaps those outside of the 'real world' would like to try practicing a different 'real world'.

followed by active service, but then the world is safe enough for you as it is... and the next time we get hit, you'll leave it to others do the dirty work for you...

It is a mistake to think that US military policy is geared primarily to protect UC citizens. It is a mistake to say that it does much to do so at all. And even if we concede that the military aims to protect, it is a mistake to think that this necessitates the military proving effective at doing so. Such dirty work proves senseless as often as it does tragic.

disclaimer: i can respect the soldier's dedication to an ideal, but not the route chosen, its consequences, or often times much of that ideal.

You ever heard of the "war on terror"? We're defending ourselves right now in Afghan. WTF is "extra defense motivations"?

In terms of technical efficacy, this is not a war of defense. Rather, our military intervention aids Islamist political movements and those factions who have worked via terrorism. The motivations? IMO, a flawed understanding of the production of trans-national 'cult theocracy' in the 'Muslim world', and a misguided conception of how democracy can be spread worldwide.

So no, I don't think that we're defending ourselves.

Hmm... So now we're comparing today with our "monkey ancestors" fighting for the best trees. BTW, 300-400 yrs is a fairly long time in recorded history.

And recorded history is a tiny fraction of human history. Also, 300-400 years, while a large proportion of recorded history, is hardly the majority of it. Basically, the historical window through which we've observed modernity and post-modernity is so brief as to preclude many generalized predictions at all.

I'm also not sure why you imply that those of non-farming cultures are somehow less than fully human culturally.

ebola

 

[qwe]

I'd really like to see some of you youngsters get a taste of the real world in the form of basic combat training...

i'd really like to see some of you oldsters PLUR the fuck out

and no, i'm not going to go get my psyche smashed and molded by a drill sergeant. this isn't sparta, despite my desire to shout that this is sparta

about what you say is "the real world"... yeah the real world has a lot of nastiness, i get it. that's why we libs are libs. we feel there is something that we can do about it. when you get a taste of "the real world" (get a taste of trauma), IME/O in most cases this only serves to close off one's worldview, turn one's emotional lens more toward the negative, et al. shattering the psyche does not usually lead to positive results

Hmm... So now we're comparing today with our "monkey ancestors" fighting for the best trees

and here we answer the thread title...

see, on this side of the ideological fence, we like to take comparisons and analogies and lessons from history

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

It's not all or nothing... A young/older woman should absolutely receive maternity care which is completely different than healthy woman [with a healthy fetus] going to Planned Parenthood and getting a taxpayer funded abortion... simply because it's inconvenient to carry the child to birth. Of course I support birth control pills, condoms, IUD's...etc. Anything but ripping out a living being from a womb. Women should use contraceptives not abortion to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Fetuses are capable of feeling pain by week 12. If for no other reason, abortion is wrong because it inflicts pain on a living defenseless human being.

I'm not going to touch the abortion issue (as far as what is living and what isn't), I just wanted to say that if somebody can't afford the abortion and needs taxpayer money to pay for it, they're probably going to need to taxpayer money to help raise the child. It's cheaper to pay for one abortion rather then many years of welfare/food stamps/etc.

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

I don't understand the conservative stance on healthcare. Why is it bad to use taxpayer money to help people but it is ok to spend taxpayer money to kill people in the middle east? Wtf?? It's a detrimental way of thinking.

The other thing I don't understand is the whole obsession with the terrorist threat.

Here is plain and simple logic.

#of terrorist related deaths in since 9/11/01 (9 year timespan) = ~15,000
#of people that died from heart disease + cancer in 2006 alone = 1,178,942

Health problems are by far the larger threat to our safety. The War in Iraq has cost us $750 billion in tax payer money so far. That money could have went to health care. I don't know how much was spent on health care in the same amount of time but I'm willing to bet it's nowhere near that number. I am guessing it's at about half that.

 

[qwe]

as some cnn guy put it, why can't we be united against death?

 

[Kenickie]

because death makes money?

or atleast

the "threat" of death

 

[qwe]

re:subdude, i'll lay my cards out as well

though i'm doing it in a more abstract/conceptual way

emotionally, i think positive emotion and progress go nicely together. as a humanist, i like to see the amount of suffering and the amount of superstition/lack of awareness decrease; and i think, as a progressive, we can self-direct our species toward such ends. i also think such change is inevitable, as a futurist

intellectually, there are hundreds of reasons i'm progressive. tbh about your "culture war", my progressive ideas do tie in nicely with science. not because "science is liberal" in any way, but i feel like when awareness is increased and comfort zones pushed and boundaries of knowledge and feeling passed, a more liberal and idealistic and dynamic worldview results

i'm talking about averages, which often get confused with absolutes in "culture war" "arguments". i'm not trying to say there are no conservative scientists etc obviously /disclaimer

 

[SubDude]

Conservatives say that if we reduce government spending on the poor, charity will fill the gap. The evidence shows they're wrong.

Another left wing resource... hmm

And according to the same research, you probably donate to churches, while I donate to charities that actually do something to improve the world.

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-

headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

-- Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood.

-- According to Syracuse University Economics Professors Brooks research: "If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent." The statistics
say that religious Americans give four times as much money to charity each year than secular people, and are 23 times more likely to volunteer to help people than folks who never attend church.

-- Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

-- Professor Brooks admits that the facts he uncovered were the opposite of what he expected to find -- so much so that he went back and checked these facts again, to make sure there was no mistake.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18218


It's more convenient and easier to give away someone else's wealth. I don't think libs would walk up to a person they don't know, grab their purse or wallet, and take what they wanted. Yet, they don't have a problem with it as
long as it's done via the IRS. If you go over to the NY Times and do a search... you'll find an article called Bleeding Heart Tightwads which I believe is quite an appropriate description for most Liberals.

Fuck that. I wouldn't go, even if I was drafted. I'd rather go to prison.

You might change your mind [or wish you had] when BUBBA and friends come to see you one night... and another... and another.

On the other hand, if the USA was actually in danger, I would sign up for the military voluntarily. But we haven't been in any real danger since the Soviet Union collapsed. Terrorists are a joke. They're about as dangerous to the US as lightning strikes are.

Tell that to the family's of 9/11 who now must go to the cemetary to visit their loved ones.

If the world is safe, why do we need people to do this dirty work? We DON'T. That is my whole point. I don't care if there are people willing to do it or not. Afghans and Iraqis aren't a threat to me. So, I don't care. Don't do that "dirty work". I don't give a fuck. I'm against those wars to begin with

So we just allow thse Taliban...et al continue to build their weapons caches and grow and recruit until they have the men and resources to attack at us will. Call me naive but I don't believe our political leaders and presidents send soldiers off to die without a real threat. You don't know and neither do I how real the threat is... thats why we elect those who can thoroughly review this classified intelligence info and make the informed decisions.

 

[SubDude]

re:subdude, i'll lay my cards out as well

though i'm doing it in a more abstract/conceptual way

emotionally, i think positive emotion and progress go nicely together. as a humanist, i like to see the amount of suffering and the amount of superstition/lack of awareness decrease; and i think, as a progressive, we can self-direct our species toward such ends. i also think such change is inevitable, as a futurist

intellectually, there are hundreds of reasons i'm progressive. tbh about your "culture war", my progressive ideas do tie in nicely with science. not because "science is liberal" in any way, but i feel like when awareness is increased and comfort zones pushed and boundaries of knowledge and feeling passed, a more liberal and idealistic and dynamic worldview results

i'm talking about averages, which often get confused with absolutes in "culture war" "arguments". i'm not trying to say there are no conservative scientists etc obviously /disclaimer

Science has it's place and so does politics... but they usually don't mix well together. Progress is one thing... but leading others where they don't want to go doesn't sit well with me. "Progressives" seem to assume they have all the latest and best relevant information needed to move forward for the common good, and everyone else is either uninformed or ignorant. Thats absurd.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

re:subdude, i'll lay my cards out as well

though i'm doing it in a more abstract/conceptual way

emotionally, i think positive emotion and progress go nicely together. as a humanist, i like to see the amount of suffering and the amount of superstition/lack of awareness decrease; and i think, as a progressive, we can self-direct our species toward such ends. i also think such change is inevitable, as a futurist

intellectually, there are hundreds of reasons i'm progressive. tbh about your "culture war", my progressive ideas do tie in nicely with science. not because "science is liberal" in any way, but i feel like when awareness is increased and comfort zones pushed and boundaries of knowledge and feeling passed, a more liberal and idealistic and dynamic worldview results

i'm talking about averages, which often get confused with absolutes in "culture war" "arguments". i'm not trying to say there are no conservative scientists etc obviously /disclaimer

Except for the secular humanism, amen to this post.

I offer this lest too many semantics wheels get spun: I think a distinction needs to be made here between science and technology. They're intimately tied but not exactly the same, and their relation to politics is one area they diverge, I think. Science's impact on society is more mental than physical -- it produces only token changes on a few select items from the physical world (research specimens), to produce profound changes in what we think would happen if we did certain things. Technology is actually doing those things, confident that we'll get the results the prior experiments led us to expect.

On one side, society does stand to change drastically and in very real ways when people reconsider the ways in which they could manipulate the world around them (whether or not they actually do these things), and that's what threatens a lot of conservatives about science. But on the other hand, to stay robust as a culture, one needs to innovate and experiment to stay abreast of what the rest of the world is doing. Otherwise the society ultimately becomes weak, collapses, and the people get absorbed into some other more successful nations, and there are few traditions left to conserve.

I am not a conservative in the least. But I would encourage any conservative who's truly serious about maintaining as much status quo as possible, to encourage local scientific research. After all, the things that really matter in life can all be conserved reasonably well with more up to date infrastructure and public works, subtle quality of life enhancements, up to date and accurate education for all children, and defense and security measures that aren't obsolete.

 

[marsmellow]

Another left wing resource... hmm

You are relying on right wing sources too. The author of your study is the president of the AEI (a right-wing think tank) and RCP and human events are right-wing websites. So, why should I believe they're telling the truth?

You are really naive if you think charity could ever replace government programs. It's ridiculous and unrealistic. I've given you plenty of reasons why, and evidence that shows it, but it's just common sense. There is no way in hell that that would work.

It's more convenient and easier to give away someone else's wealth. I don't think libs would walk up to a person they don't know, grab their purse or wallet, and take what they wanted. Yet, they don't have a problem with it as
long as it's done via the IRS. If you go over to the NY Times and do a search... you'll find an article called Bleeding Heart Tightwads which I believe is quite an appropriate description for most Liberals.

This is basically just a personal attack. Adds nothing to the discussion.

You might change your mind [or wish you had] when BUBBA and friends come to see you one night... and another... and another.

Classy. You are more of a fascist than a libertarian.

That's interesting though. You are saying that the reason most Americans love prison rape, is that it helps to keep to keep people under control. It's not because Americans are sadists that they let it happen, it's because they're authoritarians. Interesting...

Tell that to the family's of 9/11 who now must go to the cemetary to visit their loved ones.

Most families didn't have anyone die in the 9/11 attacks.

Terrorism is a joke. 30,000 people die from shootings each year. 40,000 from car accidents. 500,000 from smoking. All of those are much bigger problems than terrorism.

Call me naive but I don't believe our political leaders and presidents send soldiers off to die without a real threat.

You ARE naive if you believe that. Again, read a history book. Most of the wars we have been in were with countries that were much weaker than us. Most of the time, the USA is attacking countries, instead of defending itself.

You don't know and neither do I how real the threat is... thats why we elect those who can thoroughly review this classified intelligence info and make the informed decisions.

What if public information showed that there was no real threat? You would just blindly trust the government, and ignore reality?

 

[rant*N*rave]

You are really naive if you think charity could ever replace government programs. It's ridiculous and unrealistic. I've given you plenty of reasons why, and evidence that shows it, but it's just common sense. There is no way in hell that that would work.

How is person X choosing to elect a government that imposes high taxes to support welfare any different from person X choosing to give money without the middleman to support welfare? There are plenty of people that would be plenty inclined to go with either. In the years I have had to pay taxes, I have donated substantially less time and money to charity (because I had less money, and less time because of working for that money that disappeared), and I know for a fact that all those dollars I didn't donate didn't get sent 100% to welfare recipients. In fact, a massive portion of those dollars didn't get anywhere near a hungry child or desperate mother. Talk about how I'm just one person all you want, but there are LOTS of people like that out there. Just because you don't agree with that method doesn't mean we don't exist.

 

[marsmellow]

I'm not denying that charity would increase. I'm saying that it wouldn't increase enough to replace welfare programs.

 

[rant*N*rave]

People are choosing to give away their money by electing governments that do so. Are you suggesting that they would stop giving money away just because?

 

[Droppersneck]

I don't understand the conservative stance on healthcare. Why is it bad to use taxpayer money to help people but it is ok to spend taxpayer money to kill people in the middle east? Wtf?? It's a detrimental way of thinking.

The other thing I don't understand is the whole obsession with the terrorist threat.

Here is plain and simple logic.

#of terrorist related deaths in since 9/11/01 (9 year timespan) = ~15,000
#of people that died from heart disease + cancer in 2006 alone = 1,178,942

Health problems are by far the larger threat to our safety. The War in Iraq has cost us $750 billion in tax payer money so far. That money could have went to health care. I don't know how much was spent on health care in the same amount of time but I'm willing to bet it's nowhere near that number. I am guessing it's at about half that.

What I never got was why the war was still going on after Obama got elected? I think conservatives on principle disagree with health care because they look at as another vehicle for the government to gain another sector of the economy and our lives. It is clear some sort of reform needs to be made though.

 

[marsmellow]

People are choosing to give away their money by electing governments that do so. Are you suggesting that they would stop giving money away just because?

No. That is misleading. Most people hate paying taxes, and think they are different from charity.

 

[rant*N*rave]

^I'm just trying to be devil's advocate here to get some discussion as to WHY people think there's any difference. Maybe it is simply because people view taxes as different from charity, but I'm not sure that's really it. Clearly many people around here are able to make the connection. The whole "taxes versus charity" argument comes up all the time in politics, granted usually in a skewed conservative context, but the thoughts are all out there.

If people hate paying taxes, why do they elect governments that charge lots of taxes, let alone charge lots of taxes for shit that doesn't help them? If the stats prove quite clearly that conservatives give more than liberals, why is it that the liberals are so hell-bent on taking X's money rather than letting X give money freely? Is the suggestion then that liberals are just assholes so they have to force even themselves to give or they won't do it? It kind of doesn't make sense that the people so hell-bent on giving are the ones that give the least. A dollar is cheap for me to give when it's your dollar... It's probably too complex an issue to answer here, but perhaps the very problem itself is that taxpayers don't see taxes as altruistic giving, even though that's exactly what they are, and altruism and charity are both things we need to do as a society to keep things going.

 

[marsmellow]

The difference is that it's not altruistic giving. It's just a practical thing. Taxes are compulsory. If you don't pay them, then the IRS will harass you and eventually send you to jail.

They elect a government that does it, because they don't have a real alternative. Third parties that would cut it, like the libertarians, are shut out from the political process.

Anyway, I think it's necessary to force people to do it, because I don't think people are generous enough to support the poor and disabled through charity.

By the way, that study was done by a conservative, so it's not exactly trustworthy. That think tank has a record of distorting the truth...

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

People dislike taxes, and they dislike "big government", but they sure are fond of roads, good schools, fire departments, clean water, and lack of typhoid outbreaks.