Is it me, or do most republicans lack empathy?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
19
81
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: QED
Your perception is quantifiably wrong.

Compare this

map of states with higher-than-average charitable contributions

to this

map of states that voted for Bush in 2004 ( and hence tend to have higher concentrations of Republicans than Democrats).
How much of that 'charity' your talking about is a damned near mandated tithe to the church? Who keeps track of where the church spends it's donations?

Another interesting thing about those 'voted for Bush' states...

Link :laugh:
Antebellownd! :)
 

QED

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2005
3,428
3
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: QED
Your perception is quantifiably wrong.

Compare this

map of states with higher-than-average charitable contributions

to this

map of states that voted for Bush in 2004 ( and hence tend to have higher concentrations of Republicans than Democrats).
How much of that 'charity' your talking about is a damned near mandated tithe to the church? Who keeps track of where the church spends it's donations?

Another interesting thing about those 'voted for Bush' states...

Link :laugh:

Wow, that's a great apples-to-apples comparison there... comparing the 2004 demographics of a state to their demographics back in the middle of the 19th century! A more fair comparison would be to compare those slaves states to those states which were predominantly Democratic at the time, and you'll find out the comparison isn't nice to Democrats once again.

EDIT:

Compare your slave/free state map to this one:

1860 Presidential Election

What states voted Republican? What states voted Democratic that year? Hmmm....



 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: retrospooty
The more I hear them talk, the more they just seem to have no ability to understand what others might feel. Or is it just me?
I can observe and recognize someone else's feelings or state of mind. It doesnt mean that I have to agree with them or change my views because of them. I dont have to become them to know where they are.

What are you getting at? I dont taylor my views to your emotions or mindset? I'm not you, why would I?

 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Ignore him. He is just another Libertarian extremist. We have several of them in P&N. All extremists are equally worthless. This isn't the first time he has fought this battle either. He never wins, but sometimes he thinks he does.

With that said, I tend to agree with your OP to an extent. I do find that republicans are on average less empathetic and are more selfish than democrats. How far each of them push that limit is very different and there are some issues and problems that this country faces where I believe such qualities are an asset towards what I ultimately believe is for the best. Other times with other issues I find it to be very counter productive.

Your perception is quantifiably wrong.

Compare this

map of states with higher-than-average charitable contributions

to this

map of states that voted for Bush in 2004 ( and hence tend to have higher concentrations of Republicans than Democrats).


Unless you define "empathy" as taking away SOMEONE ELSE'S money to give to the poor instead of your own, of course...
They're only doing it for the tax breaks.
Most of them are at least. Enough to the point where using that info as an argument is quite weak and very questionable. I am not going to be fooled by numbers. I have met plenty of Republicans and have gotten to know what their personalities are like to draw my own conclusions. I am flexible too. Maybe I will end up meeting enough in the future that makes me believe otherwise. Until then...

 

QED

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2005
3,428
3
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Ignore him. He is just another Libertarian extremist. We have several of them in P&N. All extremists are equally worthless. This isn't the first time he has fought this battle either. He never wins, but sometimes he thinks he does.

With that said, I tend to agree with your OP to an extent. I do find that republicans are on average less empathetic and are more selfish than democrats. How far each of them push that limit is very different and there are some issues and problems that this country faces where I believe such qualities are an asset towards what I ultimately believe is for the best. Other times with other issues I find it to be very counter productive.

Your perception is quantifiably wrong.

Compare this

map of states with higher-than-average charitable contributions

to this

map of states that voted for Bush in 2004 ( and hence tend to have higher concentrations of Republicans than Democrats).


Unless you define "empathy" as taking away SOMEONE ELSE'S money to give to the poor instead of your own, of course...
They're only doing it for the tax breaks.
Most of them are at least. Enough to the point where using that info as an argument is quite weak and very questionable.

Are you really THAT dumb? You do realize that when you give money away to charity, you are only going to get back a small percentage of that back in reduced taxes?

A tax reduction is a nice, but small, incentive to give to charity, but that is all it is.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
19
81
Originally posted by: retrospooty
The more I hear them talk, the more they just seem to have no ability to understand what others might feel. Or is it just me?
You finally saw that clip of Cheney saying "so?" eh?
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Ignore him. He is just another Libertarian extremist. We have several of them in P&N. All extremists are equally worthless. This isn't the first time he has fought this battle either. He never wins, but sometimes he thinks he does.

With that said, I tend to agree with your OP to an extent. I do find that republicans are on average less empathetic and are more selfish than democrats. How far each of them push that limit is very different and there are some issues and problems that this country faces where I believe such qualities are an asset towards what I ultimately believe is for the best. Other times with other issues I find it to be very counter productive.

Your perception is quantifiably wrong.

Compare this

map of states with higher-than-average charitable contributions

to this

map of states that voted for Bush in 2004 ( and hence tend to have higher concentrations of Republicans than Democrats).


Unless you define "empathy" as taking away SOMEONE ELSE'S money to give to the poor instead of your own, of course...
They're only doing it for the tax breaks.
Most of them are at least. Enough to the point where using that info as an argument is quite weak and very questionable.

Are you really THAT dumb? You do realize that when you give money away to charity, you are only going to get back a small percentage of that back in reduced taxes?

A tax reduction is a nice, but small, incentive to give to charity, but that is all it is.
What do you want me to tell you? That I am now going to think that Repubs are not very selfish because you are throwing me numbers about how a bunch of rich business owners feel comfortable throwing lots of money at charities? I am sure they are very comfortable doing that. They have the money to do it and are still able to pay the bills.

As I stated in my previous post which has been edited since you clicked the quote button, until I actually meet a bunch of repubs which make me believe otherwise, then I am going to continue to feel the way I feel. Until then...
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: QED
Your perception is quantifiably wrong.

Compare this

map of states with higher-than-average charitable contributions

to this

map of states that voted for Bush in 2004 ( and hence tend to have higher concentrations of Republicans than Democrats).
How much of that 'charity' your talking about is a damned near mandated tithe to the church? Who keeps track of where the church spends it's donations?

Another interesting thing about those 'voted for Bush' states...

Link :laugh:

Wow, that's a great apples-to-apples comparison there... comparing the 2004 demographics of a state to their demographics back in the middle of the 19th century! A more fair comparison would be to compare those slaves states to those states which were predominantly Democratic at the time, and you'll find out the comparison isn't nice to Democrats once again.

EDIT:

Compare your slave/free state map to this one:

1860 Presidential Election

What states voted Republican? What states voted Democratic that year? Hmmm....
I intended that map as a joke but since you want to point the finger of slavery at the (D)'s I'll remind you that the parties sorta changed since the mid 19th century and now.
 

QED

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2005
3,428
3
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: QED
Your perception is quantifiably wrong.

Compare this

map of states with higher-than-average charitable contributions

to this

map of states that voted for Bush in 2004 ( and hence tend to have higher concentrations of Republicans than Democrats).
How much of that 'charity' your talking about is a damned near mandated tithe to the church? Who keeps track of where the church spends it's donations?

Another interesting thing about those 'voted for Bush' states...

Link :laugh:

Wow, that's a great apples-to-apples comparison there... comparing the 2004 demographics of a state to their demographics back in the middle of the 19th century! A more fair comparison would be to compare those slaves states to those states which were predominantly Democratic at the time, and you'll find out the comparison isn't nice to Democrats once again.

EDIT:

Compare your slave/free state map to this one:

1860 Presidential Election

What states voted Republican? What states voted Democratic that year? Hmmm....
I intended that map as a joke but since you want to point the finger of slavery at the (D)'s I'll remind you that the parties sorta changed since the mid 19th century and now.


You might have been joking, but apparently jonks missed the joke and took it seriously, so I had to post a rejoinder.

 

QED

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2005
3,428
3
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Ignore him. He is just another Libertarian extremist. We have several of them in P&N. All extremists are equally worthless. This isn't the first time he has fought this battle either. He never wins, but sometimes he thinks he does.

With that said, I tend to agree with your OP to an extent. I do find that republicans are on average less empathetic and are more selfish than democrats. How far each of them push that limit is very different and there are some issues and problems that this country faces where I believe such qualities are an asset towards what I ultimately believe is for the best. Other times with other issues I find it to be very counter productive.

Your perception is quantifiably wrong.

Compare this

map of states with higher-than-average charitable contributions

to this

map of states that voted for Bush in 2004 ( and hence tend to have higher concentrations of Republicans than Democrats).


Unless you define "empathy" as taking away SOMEONE ELSE'S money to give to the poor instead of your own, of course...
They're only doing it for the tax breaks.
Most of them are at least. Enough to the point where using that info as an argument is quite weak and very questionable.

Are you really THAT dumb? You do realize that when you give money away to charity, you are only going to get back a small percentage of that back in reduced taxes?

A tax reduction is a nice, but small, incentive to give to charity, but that is all it is.
What do you want me to tell you? That I am now going to think that Repubs are not very selfish because you are throwing me numbers about how a bunch of rich business owners feel comfortable throwing lots of money at charities? I am sure they are very comfortable doing that. They have the money to do it and are still able to pay the bills.

As I stated in my previous post which has been edited since you clicked the quote button, until I actually meet a bunch of repubs which make me believe otherwise, then I am going to continue to feel the way I feel. Until then...
Of course I don't expect someone to change their views simply because they've been informed of the facts. That would be totally unreasonable of me...

Besides, I think you might be on to something about rich business owners just throwing their money at charities. God knows there are tons of rich business owners in Alabama and Kansas and Oklahoma who love throwing their money away, and states like California, New York, and Massachussetts have hardly any rich business owners to do the same. It's really an unfair comparison when you think about it...




 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
19
81
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: QED
Your perception is quantifiably wrong.

Compare this

map of states with higher-than-average charitable contributions

to this

map of states that voted for Bush in 2004 ( and hence tend to have higher concentrations of Republicans than Democrats).
How much of that 'charity' your talking about is a damned near mandated tithe to the church? Who keeps track of where the church spends it's donations?

Another interesting thing about those 'voted for Bush' states...

Link :laugh:

Wow, that's a great apples-to-apples comparison there... comparing the 2004 demographics of a state to their demographics back in the middle of the 19th century! A more fair comparison would be to compare those slaves states to those states which were predominantly Democratic at the time, and you'll find out the comparison isn't nice to Democrats once again.

EDIT:

Compare your slave/free state map to this one:

1860 Presidential Election

What states voted Republican? What states voted Democratic that year? Hmmm....
I intended that map as a joke but since you want to point the finger of slavery at the (D)'s I'll remind you that the parties sorta changed since the mid 19th century and now.


You might have been joking, but apparently jonks missed the joke and took it seriously, so I had to post a rejoinder.
Yes, I missed the joke that a 150 year old demographic map doesn't actually apply to today...

I just wanted to say antebellownd.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
Originally posted by: BrownTown
A big part of this goes back to the old saying "give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for the rest of his life". When a Republican sees all these welfare programs it seems like you are just "giving away the fish" and essentially creating an underclass of people who contribute nothing to society and are like a leach to the rest of us. Many Republicans would say that by not giving these people handouts we are making them learn how to take care of themselves and be productive human beings and that only the mentally challenged or otherwise handicapped people should be given handouts not just lazy people.
I'd agree with most of what you said. To me whats cruel is to just give someone a fish, then expect them to be back tomorrow hungry. Sometimes its necessary to force someone into a position to fend for themselves so they can be taught basic responsibility even if they like it or not. Is it a lack of empathy or is it doing what should be done? To me, giving out welfare to poor people and patting them on the had "its ok, we'll feed you" is no different than how people treat animals. To me, thats not empathy, its patronizing.

Its not really any different than raising a 4 year old boy. Sometimes his toys are all over the house. If you tell him to clean up his toys, what do you do if he throws a temper tantrum? Go and pick them up for him so he doesn't learn responsibility just so you have a clean house because its the easiest and nicest thing you can do? Or do you kick his ass, and make him pick up his toys anyways, because you know he needs to learn these basic human responsibilities? Which kid will be better prepared when they turn 18, the kid from family "nice" or family "kick their ass"?

The government isn't there to be your best friend, its supposed to be there incase you need it so you don't starve, but you should expect an ass kicking in the process if its your own damn fault.

Its my opinion welfare and social services should be like a 0% loan which everybody is approved for. You have hard times, need $40,000 to get through the next few years? Cool, here you go. You still have to pay it back or face jail time. So you better go find a job, or go to school, or do something with it, because the bill collector will start collecting in 2 years.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
I have noticed that republicans are typically less empathic than democrats.

I've also noticed that democrats tend to be less forgiving, and less patient, than republicans.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Republicans don't lack empathy, they just don't empathize with people that they don't identify with.
Goes both ways.

But, this has got to be the stupidest, most flame baiting thread in weeks. How do you libs do it?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Republicans don't lack empathy, they just don't empathize with people that they don't identify with.
Goes both ways.

But, this has got to be the stupidest, most flame baiting thread in weeks. How do you libs do it?
They're good studies and learned from the Republicans during the 90's;)

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I have noticed that republicans are typically less empathic than democrats.

I've also noticed that democrats tend to be less forgiving, and less patient, than republicans.
Yep the Republicans showed a lot of patience before screwing the pooch and invading Iraq.:shocked:
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: QED
Of course I don't expect someone to change their views simply because they've been informed of the facts. That would be totally unreasonable of me...
LOL, its like shooting fish in a barrel.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Republicans don't lack empathy, they just don't empathize with people that they don't identify with.
Goes both ways.
It's harder to say "libs"don't empathize with people unlike them. Take middle-aged white women who like Obama and his story. They'd probably jump to his family's defense if something like the Palin fiasco was happening to him, despite the fact that he is of a different race and background.

But notice how quickly social conservatives jump to Palin's defense because she's one of them. In another thread a poster said it was "refreshing" to see an imperfect family when referring to the Palins. Ridiculous. They only empathize because the imperfect family looks and has the same dumb ideas that they do.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,277
125
106
Yes, because I feel that every tom dick or harry that gets a scratch on their knee shouldn't be able to go to the hospital to a doctor to get a $1000 fee for the check up on the tax payers tab, I'm instantly not empathetic.

Please, This government was set up because we were being taxed too much and controlled to much by the government. Now because I feel it is going back to the same system I'm instantly a cold hearted wretch.

Republicans are no more cold hearted then democrats. The difference is the philosophy. Democrats seem to believe that no one will help anyone unless we take the money from them. Where as republicans say that people will get along just fine if we leave them alone. (Actually, thats not true anymore. The Dems and the Republicans have turned into some super party. Both sides agendas are almost exactally the same, and I don't like where they are heading)
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
For over two decades -- for over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy: Give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.

In Washington, they call this the "Ownership Society," but what it really means is that you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck, you're on your own. No health care? The market will fix it. You're on your own. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You are on your own.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,277
125
106
Originally posted by: her209
For over two decades -- for over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy: Give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.

In Washington, they call this the "Ownership Society," but what it really means is that you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck, you're on your own. No health care? The market will fix it. You're on your own. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You are on your own.
Education is one form of welfare that I can't see getting screwed up too much (Though, public schools aren't all that great in the US) This is one of the few forms of welfare that ultimately will almost always make a person a better producer in society.

Just handing out a check every month and keeping them alive with crap care is not something that makes a person better. If anything it breeds a society of people that believe that they should be provided for in every way by the government.
 

Pandaren

Golden Member
Sep 13, 2003
1,029
0
0
Originally posted by: retrospooty
The more I hear them talk, the more they just seem to have no ability to understand what others might feel. Or is it just me?
I'll weigh in on this. I grew up in a mostly white, Republican, suburban community. The people were friendly enough, but it was very obvious that they disapproved of anyone who wasn't like them.

Gay people, if they were bold enough to come out of the closet, were subject to ridicule and told that they were going to hell.

People who didn't believe in the Christian God were ridiculed and criticized and constantly subject to attempts to convert them.

The few Jews were either subject to ridicule or attempts to convert them to Christianity.

People did not seem to understand, or care, that they caused suffering to those who were not white born-again Christians.

The 1980's and early 1990's were not a fun time to live in my area if you didn't conform. This started to change in the mid 1990's as more people moved to the area. By the time I graduated from high school, the population was tilting towards being Centrist, and the social atmosphere was far less toxic to minorities.

Edit:

My conclusion is that populations that are relatively homogeneous in terms of culture and ethnicity are likely to lack empathy for those outside their group. I don't think this exclusively applies to Republicans. I have relatives who are not Republicans but have odd beliefs about African Americans and are highly anti-Semitic.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: QED
Your perception is quantifiably wrong.

Compare this

map of states with higher-than-average charitable contributions

to this

map of states that voted for Bush in 2004 ( and hence tend to have higher concentrations of Republicans than Democrats).
How much of that 'charity' your talking about is a damned near mandated tithe to the church? Who keeps track of where the church spends it's donations?

Another interesting thing about those 'voted for Bush' states...

Link :laugh:

Wow, that's a great apples-to-apples comparison there... comparing the 2004 demographics of a state to their demographics back in the middle of the 19th century! A more fair comparison would be to compare those slaves states to those states which were predominantly Democratic at the time, and you'll find out the comparison isn't nice to Democrats once again.

EDIT:

Compare your slave/free state map to this one:

1860 Presidential Election

What states voted Republican? What states voted Democratic that year? Hmmm....
I intended that map as a joke but since you want to point the finger of slavery at the (D)'s I'll remind you that the parties sorta changed since the mid 19th century and now.
Kind of funny how Republicans go on about how they were the party of Lincoln, but the fact is liberals opposed slavery and conservatives favored slavery. If you try to say otherwise, you'd twisting definitions.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY