In the Grand Old Party, and having a grand time

[XMan]

Link

Interesting article.

 

[sunlihwa]

Happy is the new sad ! It is true!

 

[Train]

the same results get posted here like once a year or so...

Read the forum FAQ... your not supposed to just post a link. You need to comment on it more than just "Interesting article."

oh wait, you're "Elite", you know better!

but the thread title reminded me of a quote from Bob Parsons (GoDaddy founder)

We're not here for a long time, we're here for a good time!

though I'm not sure if it was his or he borrowed it from someone else.

 

[Lemon law]

Happiness is having someone to hate. And a God who hates what you hate.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Happiness is having someone to hate. And a God who hates what you hate.

whew that stink, let me guess where you pulled it from.

heres what Wikipedia says:

In humans
When speaking of animals with the ability to reason (generally considered the exclusive domain of humans), goals are no longer limited to short term satisfaction of basic drives. Nevertheless, there remains a strong relationship of happiness to goal fulfillment and the brain's reinforcement mechanism, even if the goals themselves may be more complex and/or cerebral, longer term, and less selfish than a non-human animal's goals might be.

Philosophers observe that short-term gratification, while briefly generating happiness, often requires a trade-off with negative repercussions in the long run. Examples of this could be said to include developing technology and equipment that makes life easier but over time ends up harming the environment, causing illness or wasting financial or other resources. Various branches of philosophy, as well as some religious movements, suggest that "true" happiness only exists if it has no long-term detrimental effects. Classical Utilitarianism is a theory of ethics based on quantitative maximization of happiness.

From the observation that fish must become happy by swimming, and birds must become happy by flying, Aristotle points to the unique abilities of man as the route to happiness. Of all the animals only man can sit and contemplate reality. Of all the animals only man can develop social relations to the political level. Thus the contemplative life of a monk or professor, or the political life of a military commander or politician will be the happiest.

In contrast, Zhuangzi points out that only man is endowed with the ability necessary to generate complex language and thought--language and thought that can be used to distinguish between things and form dichotomies. These dichotomies then formed, man tries to find reasons to like one side of things and hate the other. Hence, he loses his ability to love freely, in true happiness, unlike animals.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: XMan
Link

Interesting article.

That's one hell of a commentary there, fella. Tell us how you really feel.

 

[Vic]

In accordance with the Second Noble Truth, that desire and passion is the origin of suffering, thus happiness is the state of acceptance and passivity, of being content with the world as it is, not usually traits that one finds with world-saving progressives.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: XMan

Interesting article.

Why? I want my time back.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: XMan

Interesting article.

Why? I want my time back.

I think we found one Xman.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: XMan
Link

<Interesting article.

That's one hell of a commentary there, fella. Tell us how you really feel.

My commentary is in the subheading. "Or, why most of P&N are grumps!"

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: XMan

Interesting article.

Why? I want my time back.

LMAO. I gotta say, Harvey, you came right to mind as I read that article . . .

 

[Rainsford]

I suppose the obvious question is just how you measure "happiness". Unless there is some advanced MRI technique I've never heard of, I suspect what we're talking about is self reported feelings...and that's where this turns from being a scientific discussion into image marketing. There are certain things that are part of the conservative (and liberal) image, and when talking to party faithful, you would seem to be more likely to get the party line answer rather than an honest opinion. Republicans place a great deal of importance on being (or at least appearing) well adjusted, happy, pillar of the community sort of of people. It seems unsurprising that a Republican would be more likely to say he or she was happy even if that were not the case. If this were a survey about intelligence, I suspect you'd get far more Democrats self reporting that they are smart, does that imply that Republicans are stupid? Nope...it just implies that the way people want to be seen by the world changes with political views.

Of course my theory on Democratic leaning studies is simply theoretic...so far as I know, things like this rarely pop up for Democratic traits, yet they appear regularly when it's something for the Republicans to brag about. So rather than it simply being a matter of different traits being important, I wonder if it's simply more important to Republicans that everyone thinks of them a certain way. Needless to say, if that's the case, that seems like a recipe for unhappiness to me

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Why? I want my time back.

Is it that tough to read an article without BOLD TEXT, :| :thumbsdown: :|, and words like sycophant, traitor, Bushwhacko, Murderer, Treason, et al.? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey
Why? I want my time back.

Is it that tough to read an article without BOLD TEXT, :| :thumbsdown: :|, and words like sycophant, traitor, Bushwhacko, Murderer, Treason, et al.? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

No, it's ass licking, Bushwhacko, neocon, sycophants, you moron! :laugh:

 

[ProfJohn]

Look at P&N and tell me who looks happier?