Best
292 Comments
Post
  • #1
    !
    It's pretty clear isn't it? Anyone that supports abortions don't have many morals taking a life of the innocent. Getting people addicted to government funding and not working don't have many morals.
  • #7
    !
    Now, now jmann88, liberals do care about life. You just have to be a murderer or something like that and they will fight tooth and nail to make sure you have a nice long life. They wouldn't dare allow you to get the death penalty.
  • #20
    !
    @jmann88 - I'd rather have a good statesman who loves his country and represents his constituents well than a partisan hack who refuses to do the nation's business with anyone who disagrees with him.
  • #21
    !
    you do realise, don't you, that even if a person is a 'conservative' and they get pregnant and can't remain so for any reason, they get an abortion. it's the natural thing to do.
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    !
    Conservatives like to look at the big picture, and we focus on the facts. Liberals are more concerned with individual bumps in the road and react to everything from an extremely emotional standpoint. Analysis: Conservatives usually come out with the right path to prosperity and a good life, liberals almost never do. Hey, I'm just being honest.
  • #13
    !
    Actually, I was under the impression that conservatives, like liberals, enjoy people saying things they want to hear. Much like this man is pandering to a specific group in order to sell a book. He has a built in audience so why not say the things they want to hear. Where is his research? How long did he do this study? Who were the members of his focus groups. You'll not find such answers even in the book itself.. The moral foundations theory that you see the chart for is in fact a device of his own creation. It's his theory and he based his book on his opinions. The two groups, conservatives and liberals, comprise a large number of individuals. All with suprisingly complex and differing psychological motivations from the others even within their own group. This man grossly misrepresents opinion for fact and pandering for science to schill a book to a group of uninformed nitwits who like having someone pat them on the back and tell them they're doing the right thing. This man is yet another partisan hack pandering to make a buck. If you're to naive to see it then more is the shame for you.
  • #28
    !
    Being honest, or being deluded? Conservatives I've seen on here have two answers to fit every question. Its Obamas fault cut spending, and cut taxes.
  • #30
    !
    @frigginhell - Haidt has had some accolades in his research on morality and happiness, but it always bothers me when psychologists try to be sociologists. Instead, I would enjoy reading something from Diane Vaughan or Eviatar Zerubavel on this subject.
  • R Load more replies

  • #15
    !
    I think this type of study further separates us as Americans. Anytime you place people in categories, it complicates communication and understanding. The problems we see in Washington DC are the result.
    I guess I care about Liberties and not much else, thank you for informing me of my shallowness.
  • #157
    !
    @Fishbone345 If people could see the root of all our problems is the oppression of liberty all of our other issue's would go away. Yes its very shallow of you to be concerned with the freedoms and rights of others to live there life as they see fit instead of advocating conformity to government lies and basing there lives on peer pressure. Shame on you. However will a free nation survive if everybody has the freedom of choice on how to live there life's.
  • #66
    !
    Not necessarily. All three groups may (or may not) feel morally obligated to care for the disadvantaged. The desired government response however differs. A liberal sees a hungry man and wants government to feed him. A conservative sees a hungry man and feeds him. A libertarian sees a hungry man and trades him food for his labor.

    Where liberals see government as a means to utopia, conservatives and libertarians recognize that government is a necessary evil and should be limited.
  • #75
    !
    "A conservative sees a hungry man and feeds him."
    Not really. A conservative sees a hungry man, follows him through the grocery store making judgments about what he uses his food stamps for, then says he shouldn't have had the children he had and if they starve, well, that's not their problem. As for libertarians? The most extreme of them have merely decided to live by the law of the jungle : every man for himself and devil take the hindmost. Nothing all that admirable about that.
  • #89
    !
    @Zazziness
    I'm libertarian and don't have problem with the devil taking the hindmost. Since I am suffering from arthritis it's going to be me. Since I'm CCW he'll have to work a lot harder to take me. Since I'm over fifty my loss will weigh less then those with more life to lose.
  • #90
    !
    @Drake_Burrwood I have RA, too, but am still a useful and productive member of society. If you'd like to go float out on an iceberg because you feel you are valueless and we should live like wolves, OK. Personally, I prefer we live like what we are: social animals meant to live in a group where the strengths of each help the weaknesses of others.
  • R Load more replies

  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #65
    !
    I am surprised that this got posted given the thoughts of the author.

    From an interview with the author:
    Q: Does this make political conversations pre-determined, maybe even pointless?
    A: Only in certain circumstances. For example, let’s say you’re on the Internet and having an anonymous discussion with someone else using fake names. There’s no relationship, no accountability, and you’re simply arguing over, say, whether what President Obama did was constitutional or not. Then yes, that’s totally pointless.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/artic...
  • #93
    !
    Look who's talking.

    Supporting abortion and being against the death penalty is insanely hypocritical. You want the murderers to live while allowing innocent children to be killed lawfully?
  • #108
    !
    @Politicskid What innocent children? Never realized the death penalty was actually a conservative issue. My comment wasn't aimed at vapid wedge issues the GOP introduces every election time.
  • #6
    !
    >>>Do you think conservatives have a wider set of "moral foundations" than liberals?<<<
    Don't know about that moral claim but do know conservatives have a wider set of hypocrisy foundations.

    After all these same conservatives are the ones who declared themselves "the moral party" and "the family values party" and "party sworn to restore honor and dignity to public office" and then straightway showed themselves to be anything but, and to this very day.
  • #8
    !
    Another thing this Psychologist overlooks is the fact that there can be no freedom of religion, nor free moral exercising, without a nation imbued with freedom and liberty through the secular rule-of-law.
  • #117
    !
    "After all these same conservatives are the ones who declared themselves "the moral party" and "the family values party" and "party sworn to restore honor and dignity to public office" and then straightway showed themselves to be anything but, and to this very day"

    How so?

    "there can be no freedom of religion, nor free moral exercising, without a nation imbued with freedom and liberty through the secular rule-of-law."

    The forefathers disagreed with you:

    "[T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society.... To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these ... religious institutions are eminently useful and important....[T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion." -Oliver Ellsworth (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 1802)

    "We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism." -Benjamin Rush (Signer of the Declaration of Independence)

    "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure,[and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." -Charles Carroll of Carrollton (Signer of the Declaration of Independence)
  • #182
    !
    @TeresaJ
    The forefathers exactly agreed with me.

    We are a secular rule-of-law nation. Every behavior in our nation is subject to the rule-of-law, including religion. Every behavior you call moral or immoral when in dispute must have its final or ultimate resolution in the secular rule-of-law. Abortion, gay marriage, civil rights, voting, religion, property, criminal behavior, etc., etc., will if not settled in lower Courts find its conclusive resolution in our system of secular law at the High Court of the nation or through Amending the Constitution.

    Without the protection of the law religion would not be free.

    I'm not "decrying the Christian religion", I am a Christian. I am decrying the co-mingling or merging of religion with the state, whatever religion it may be. I beleive in giving to the state that which is the states and to God that which is his. Don't mix my religon with the state where it is then under the dictates of the state.
  • #5
    !
    No, not your typical conservative/republican. conservatives in the southern half of the country and rural areas elsewhere as well use racism,intolerance,extremism, Sarah Palin and fox news to determine their stances and view points. seeing as their aren't many republicans outside of the south or rural areas, this "study" is bullshit.
  • #9
    !
    I think it would be eye opening for you to go to New York and drive about 3 hours west of NYC and you'd be surprised how few liberals exist. Liberals are usually confined to urban areas in states while conservatives are more spread out in rural areas. Probably has something to do with years of having to fend for oneself and not depend on the government.
  • #17
    !
    @DrNickels or it might have to do with the fact that those in the city actually SEE poverty and its effects on people up close.
  • #23
    !
    @mtkopf
    Now I know you don't know what you are talking about. You've not spent much time in rural America then. That's real poverty. In the country there are no buses, no public transportation. The closest store isn't just down the block or the closest hospital isn't just a couple streets away. Sometimes it's over 20 miles. Your ignorance is overwhelming.

    The majority of New York State is filled with poor rural areas who suffer under the high tax policies that the crazies in NYC dream up. I'm guessing if it was put to a vote New York State would split into western New York and eastern New York.
  • #32
    !
    @DrNickels yeah... i've been all over that area. they define 'conservative' the same as everyone else defines 'redneck'. some people even call them 'po white trailer trash'
  • R Load more replies

  • #61
    !
    When you have someone so extreme left or right making a point strictly toward their belief only makes those of that nature more likely think they are always right and knows what's best. They only complexity of any party is money. How much they are getting. Their morals are always up for sale to the highest bidder. Until that part of the political equal gets closer to zero, there will always be a great divide between each.
  • #38
    !
    My answer to the 2 questions asked is maybe. Whatever complexity is being referred to here derives from a deep wiring of the brain. The liberal or conservative inclinations we have are not consciously arrived at most of the time. They come from our gut. One is not better or superior than the other, one is not more complex than the other....they are just different and represent a natural variability within the species which has in the past bettered the survival rate of our ancestors. I no more chose to be a liberal than I did being a heterosexual.
  • #33
    !
    Sure, conservatives are more complex, liberals are stuck in the childish state of I/Me and some very child like idea of "fairness". Sort of like Tim's brother got 6 toys for Christmas and $30.00, with his money he bought 4 other toys and saved $10 for later. Tim also got the 6 toys and $30. He spent his $30, totally, on one game. HIS (the liberal way) idea of fairness was for brother to give half his toys he bought to Tim and $5.00, all in the idea of "fairness". After all poor Tim only got a total of 7 toys while brother got TEN toys and $10! It's just not fair, brother OWES Tim because he has more. That, boys and girls, explains the liberal mindset. Equal opportunity MUST mean equal outcome to liberals. To conservatives, equal opportunity means just that, we all start from square one, what personal decisions you make after that are yours and yours alone.
  • #14
    !
    this isn't possible as 'morals values' aren't anything which any group can hold. the things which this 'psychologist' mentioned are nothing more than common sense issues and even at best he's doing exactly the same thing that he's accusing 'liberals' of doing... stereotyping.

    what the hell is a 'political psychologist', anyway?
  • #291
    !
    I question the accuracy of anything that attempts to place the complexity of moral decision-making into neat little boxes. I once took Haidt's test to see where I fell on his spectrum and the result pegged me as moderately conservative, but given my views on all the major political issues, most people would peg me as a far-left liberal.

    The "Moral Matrix" is also biased in its suggestion that drawing upon a wider range of moral bases represents greater moral complexity. It's further biased in that it omits some bases, such as emotion and personal experiences, which also play a role in moral decision-making, but that's a negative for conservatives that Haidt may have deliberately wanted to avoid.
  • #290
    !
    I wonder where independents fall into this? You know, those who are not fascist or socialist? The ones who tick everyone off by deciding elections. The kind of people who despise both the conservative Koch brothers for ruining conservative politics and George Soros who is trying to liberalize America.
  • #289
    !
    No, and Haidt proves the point when he says: "Conservatives are actually far more morally complex than liberals." That right there proves Conservatives don't have a basic understanding of what is "care-harm, fairness-cheating, liberty-oppression, loyalty-betrayal, authority-subversion, sanctity-degradation." They see morals through distorted vision, deluded ideas, and raw emotion.
  • #287
    !
    I really don't know. There is an old saying, "Let me not judge a man until I've walked a mile in his shoes". I've walked a mile in Liberal's shoes and they still don't fit very well, however, they are still shoes. I'm sure Liberals are sincere in their beliefs, but I just don't see the validity of most of them.
  • R Load more comments...
Post