Liberal men least happy

[Geosurface]

Geo,

I think the problem you are describing is that in life, people need a leader. Too many are following the directions of others. Maybe it's part of our evolution, our animal instincts to follow the pack.

You have girls following Miley Cyrus. You have boys following some sports athlete. You have liberals following some cause. You have conservatives following some God. You have others following the government. You have others following a purpose, or an ideology and so on. Any one of those can be damaging, any of them can be positive. Depends on the purpose, but when it comes down to it. We are following something.

Those who want power, use those for their own benefit and greed. That's the evil of this world. Liberals and conservatives are an equal victim here. Those who want power know that at some point, their goals become self destructive or people catch on to it and they morph into another thing entirely. That will never end.

I think you're probably right about this.

 

[lotus503]

Geo,

I think the problem you are describing is that in life, people need a leader. Too many are following the directions of others. Maybe it's part of our evolution, our animal instincts to follow the pack.

You have girls following Miley Cyrus. You have boys following some sports athlete. You have liberals following some cause. You have conservatives following some God. You have others following the government. You have others following a purpose, or an ideology and so on. Any one of those can be damaging, any of them can be positive. Depends on the purpose, but when it comes down to it. We are following something.

Those who want power, use those for their own benefit and greed. That's the evil of this world. Liberals and conservatives are an equal victim here. Those who want power know that at some point, their goals become self destructive or people catch on to it and they morph into another thing entirely. That will never end.

Well said!!

 

[lotus503]

I'd just like to say I'm neither Democrat or Republican, but I lean Conservative.

That said, surveys/studies like this are completely worthless. Most everything has a bias to it. I know happy liberals. I know unhappy liberals. Same with conservatives. I don't think either really out number the other.

In my personal life this is what I see:

1) Most people who work don't choose to bitch because they are too busy working. Liberal and Conservative. They choose not to add fuel to the fire or work themselves up over things they cannot change. Most people in the position realize nothing is actually going to change, and we'll continue to work. "They" are going to take our money regardless, "They" are going to pass whatever laws they choose. No matter which hat we wear. They instead choose to just live life and make the best of it in the current moment while they can.

2) Those who don't work (and choose not to) have more time to bitch about the other side and point fingers. They like being the victim. There is some reason, or someone is out to get them. They yell about some cause, or some agenda. "Don't beat puppies" "Hug every kitty" On and on it goes, from both sides. Pushing their agenda because their life has no purpose otherwise. Get a job, I say.

3) Surprise surprise. Both have a similar % of those working, and unemployed. There are good people on both sides, and bad people on both sides. It's just that their jersey and pom-poms are different colors.

Their agenda should really change focus and look at those really in charge... "Them". Because it's impossible to hug every kitty. You can't right every wrong. There is just more wrong around the corner. Wrong will be invented just to keep us busy.

Just my observations and thoughts.

I agree with just about all of this, the only thing I would say is the time I spent unemployed in life during the dotcom collpase was some of the best times in my life. I think its all about perspective.

 

[Atreus21]

In the end of the day, everything is the same whether or not you say things have happened or are happening that no one can witness and have no material effect on anything that happens in life.

Humans have this predisposition towards finding higher meaning in "god did it" but that doesn't really change anything either. It just pushes out he questions and uncertainty to a place where people are comfortable leaving it. Why should you be intrinsically happier with intent and design coming from a supernatural deity but not care about intent and design within humanity? Put it another way: if it turns out your deity is itself the result of a natural process in some other universe does that invalidate everything?

An answer to that lies in any claim to objective morality. In human society, if I'm smart or just lucky enough I can evade even the best authorities while committing the most atrocious acts. Think Pol Pot and Stalin. Killed millions. Died in their beds.

Without a God, morality is arbitrary. I can't live like that. It's not proof of God. It's proof that belief in God is rational.

 

[shadow9d9]

An answer to that lies in any claim to objective morality. In human society, if I'm smart or just lucky enough I can evade even the best authorities while committing the most atrocious acts. Think Pol Pot and Stalin. Killed millions. Died in their beds.

Without a God, morality is arbitrary. I can't live like that. It's not proof of God. It's proof that belief in God is rational.

You don't seem to understand the concept of proof. You simply made a circular argument in which you ended up with the result that you wished.

Morality is always arbitrary. You do what you feel is right.

That has nothing to do with whether your particular brand of magic man exists.

Just because you are too weak to exist in a world without some magic creature defining the limits of the world, doesn't magically make it exist!

The world is scary and harsh. You can either make believe to feel better, or simply enjoy the good things in life without fairy tales to comfort you.

 

[shadow9d9]

This from the man who thinks there is no left in the US and there has never been a communist nation.

That is right. Education goes a long way. Dictatorships have NOTHING to do with communism. They are literally the polar opposite.

And no, the Democrats, which are more to the right than conservative parties from every other first world country, and who now pushes the policies of republicans from 20 years ago, is as far from "left" as possible. It is simply the "other" that the Republicans want to attack.. therefore, they construct this image of a polar opposite to attack. Suckers like you fall for it, but that doesn't make it reality.

 

[shadow9d9]

What "lack of evidence"?

To say God "lacks evidence" means you've examined all the evidence ever presented during the history of man, which is impossible.

If I say, there's no evidence GM built my car, means I took time to examine all evidence ever presented supporting this notion, and had reason to reject it.

Secondly, everyone has a different standard of evidence...what convinces me may not convince you, so this "lack of evidence' t-shirt slogan is entirely subjective.

There is zero actual evidence of any type of magic man. Literally zero.

If your "standard" of evidence includes how you FEEL, then you could concoct all of the evidence in the world!

 

[nehalem256]

That is right. Education goes a long way. Dictatorships have NOTHING to do with communism. They are literally the polar opposite.

It sure does. If you had any you would realize that every communist government in history was a dictatorship.

 

[shadow9d9]

It sure does. If you had any you would realize that every communist government in history was a dictatorship.

Exactly my point. Since dictatorships are the exact opposite of what communism actually is, then it doesn't make much sense does it!?

They were dictatorships that used the idea of communism to rise to power and establish the dictatorship. Some had socialist based economies(or tried).

They both(china/SU) used the allure of the idea of communism to encourage uprising, and then promptly took over as dictator. They were nothing close to what communism actually is.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, it just removes any justification for it. The only answer for "Why do you care about life?" becomes "Because I feel like caring about life."

No, because when all the bullshit reasons for valuing life are gone all that is left is life itself. Life cares. Give up the bullshit and you will come right round where you were before, but without all the bullshit.

 

[nehalem256]

Exactly my point. Since dictatorships are the exact opposite of what communism actually is, then it doesn't make much sense does it!?

They were dictatorships that used the idea of communism to rise to power and establish the dictatorship. Some had socialist based economies(or tried).

They both(china/SU) used the allure of the idea of communism to encourage uprising, and then promptly took over as dictator. They were nothing close to what communism actually is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_USSR

Sure they were. Or at least they tried to be. Of course that attempt was an abject failure and led to millions starving to death.

Seems like what you are actually saying is that "True" communism is incompatible with reality.

 

[shadow9d9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_USSR

Sure they were. Or at least they tried to be. Of course that attempt was an abject failure and led to millions starving to death.

Seems like what you are actually saying is that "True" communism is incompatible with reality.

Communism is definitely a fantasy and wouldn't work in reality. That being said, a dictatorship is wholly incompatible with the idea of communism. They used the idea of communism to rise to power.

As for why people starved, that is pretty simple. You should educate yourself. The idea of communism, or even socialism, is based on having the capacity/technology to care for the basic needs of the people. Russia, at the time, was in no shape, with very, very limited production at the time. Technology/trade/communication had not been evolved enough to care for the people. That is more a product of the time and history of early 1900s Russia.

 

[Abraxas]

Communism is definitely a fantasy and wouldn't work in reality. That being said, a dictatorship is wholly incompatible with the idea of communism. They used the idea of communism to rise to power.

As for why people starved, that is pretty simple. You should educate yourself. The idea of communism, or even socialism, is based on having the capacity/technology to care for the basic needs of the people. Russia, at the time, was in no shape, with very, very limited production at the time. Technology/trade/communication had not been evolved enough to care for the people. That is more a product of the time and history of early 1900s Russia.

Not to pick on you specifically but...

Have you ever noticed how people are always so quick to just assume because it hasn't been done before it will never work. For a time, a long time, every major government in history was a monarchy or oligarchy or junta until suddenly they weren't when someone pulled off a successful broad scale representative democracy. It certainly wasn't the first time democracy had been tried, in fact it had several times before that been tried and failed to spread or jump from local to national level.

Having the capacity or technology is really neither here nor there for the Soviet Union, even if they didn't have the technology or infrastructure when the revolutions started there, they certainly did by their collapse. The bottom line is while the revolution may have started on socialist terms with socialist ideals, the government structure they imposed was so far removed from anything resembling socialism or communism to make the application of either label laughable. This is the same principle as the Democratic Republic of North Korea is neither democratic nor a republic regardless of what they call themselves. The situation was unique to Russia and born out an offshoot of communism which called for a vanguard party, a select group to lead the revolution, but who then has a vested interest in the revolution never ending. This is implicit within the stated idea of permanent revolution the Leninists seem to like.

As far as whether it works, that remains to be seen, doesn't it? What socialist is, at the most base level is democratic control of government and worker ownership of the means of production. A nationwide democracy hardly seems strange to us now, and as for workers controlling industry, well, we already see co-ops, as well as similar structures in mutual companies and things like credit unions. It certainly doesn't seem unfeasible that an economy could exist largely based around organizations like those instead of corporations. Technology has taken an interesting turn in this regard too with the rise of crowdsourcing as a viable mechanism for funding (so far) medium scale projects with, for example, Star Citizen having raised $35 Million and counting whereas previously such a project almost certainly would have required a major game studio to back it.

 

[row]

whose happy, whose sad, let's take a look...

look at the evidence. what demographic groups make up the liberal collage? well, first we can start with gays. that alone might suggest to a thinking person (not you guys) that, here we have a section of society (albeit minuscule) which is close to the most depressed group on the planet. gosh, sorry fellas. how about leftist hags? well, the overwhelming percentage of abortions are performed on (and by) liberals. whatever your take on abortion may be, the fact remains that it produces depression in the recipient (not the baby/fetus/zygote/whatever, it's dead). mommies and potential mommies killing babies, depressing. we could look at individuals, typical leftists, say ed schultz or chris (thrill up my leg) matthews, both these poor souls hyperventilate and foam at the mouth on a consistent basis, not sure what DSM-IV disorders they possess, but they are anything but happy. well, pretty sure you can see where this is going, i could list any number of other demographics groups that make up your global village with the same sort of results, but i know you fellas already have to deal with postpartum psychosis (liberal males suffer from this malady based on the suppressed gay/confused sexual identity gene prevalent in your subspecies) so we'll leave it there.

i know you're all familiar with the recent research by Columbia University which shows that a persons spirituality (religiosity) offers protection against depression. using new imaging techniques scientist have discovered that people who are spiritually predisposed have a thicker cortex, for the uniformed amongst you (regressives/leftists) the cerebral cortex is the brain's outermost layer made of gray matter that forms the organ's characteristic folds, areas of which are important hubs of neural activity for processes such as sensory perception, language and emotion.

being secular progessives, heathen compatriots or just plain lame athiests, you're all obviously part of the small cortex demographic. pretty depressing huh. psychotropic meds anyone?

 

[Exophase]

An answer to that lies in any claim to objective morality. In human society, if I'm smart or just lucky enough I can evade even the best authorities while committing the most atrocious acts. Think Pol Pot and Stalin. Killed millions. Died in their beds.

Without a God, morality is arbitrary. I can't live like that. It's not proof of God. It's proof that belief in God is rational.

But humans, and other animals, tend to intrinsically value more than just their own well being. They still commit atrocities, society doesn't always stop them - and neither does religion. That goes for both the atheist rulers you listed and many theistic ones.

Maybe you think that your moral code only exists because it was taught in your particular brand of religion. And yet very similar core ideas have developed naturally and independently throughout history with no consensus as having been dictated from a common supernatural source. Some ancient philosophies regarding morality have no reference to the supernatural at all.

Or maybe you think that it's because of a supernatural influence that everyone ends up with a lot of similar moral leanings. If this is the case then it really doesn't make a difference how it got there. The thing is, our ideas of morality - which can be mostly be distilled to a balance between how we treat ourselves vs how we treat others in the world around us at varying levels, if you cut out a lot of the archaic bullshit (which unfortunately religion tends to accumulate) - can be explained as developing precisely because of their value towards our preservation.

Frankly I see the explanation of something being favored because it enhances our survival and diminishes our suffering as being far less arbitrary than "because someone more powerful than us says so."

 

[nehalem256]

Not to pick on you specifically but...

Have you ever noticed how people are always so quick to just assume because it hasn't been done before it will never work. For a time, a long time, every major government in history was a monarchy or oligarchy or junta until suddenly they weren't when someone pulled off a successful broad scale representative democracy. It certainly wasn't the first time democracy had been tried, in fact it had several times before that been tried and failed to spread or jump from local to national level.

Are you forgetting the Roman Republic that lasted for over 400 years?

 

[lotus503]

whose happy, whose sad, let's take a look...

look at the evidence. what demographic groups make up the liberal collage? well, first we can start with gays. that alone might suggest to a thinking person (not you guys) that, here we have a section of society (albeit minuscule) which is close to the most depressed group on the planet. gosh, sorry fellas. how about leftist hags? well, the overwhelming percentage of abortions are performed on (and by) liberals. whatever your take on abortion may be, the fact remains that it produces depression in the recipient (not the baby/fetus/zygote/whatever, it's dead). mommies and potential mommies killing babies, depressing. we could look at individuals, typical leftists, say ed schultz or chris (thrill up my leg) matthews, both these poor souls hyperventilate and foam at the mouth on a consistent basis, not sure what DSM-IV disorders they possess, but they are anything but happy. well, pretty sure you can see where this is going, i could list any number of other demographics groups that make up your global village with the same sort of results, but i know you fellas already have to deal with postpartum psychosis (liberal males suffer from this malady based on the suppressed gay/confused sexual identity gene prevalent in your subspecies) so we'll leave it there.

i know you're all familiar with the recent research by Columbia University which shows that a persons spirituality (religiosity) offers protection against depression. using new imaging techniques scientist have discovered that people who are spiritually predisposed have a thicker cortex, for the uniformed amongst you (regressives/leftists) the cerebral cortex is the brain's outermost layer made of gray matter that forms the organ's characteristic folds, areas of which are important hubs of neural activity for processes such as sensory perception, language and emotion.

being secular progessives, heathen compatriots or just plain lame athiests, you're all obviously part of the small cortex demographic. psychotropic meds anyone?

Subspecies and other ridiculousness, I think the really sad part is you believe your own drivel. :whiste:.

 

[Vic]

whose happy, whose sad, let's take a look...

look at the evidence. what demographic groups make up the liberal collage? well, first we can start with gays. that alone might suggest to a thinking person (not you guys) that, here we have a section of society (albeit minuscule) which is close to the most depressed group on the planet. gosh, sorry fellas. how about leftist hags? well, the overwhelming percentage of abortions are performed on (and by) liberals. whatever your take on abortion may be, the fact remains that it produces depression in the recipient (not the baby/fetus/zygote/whatever, it's dead). mommies and potential mommies killing babies, depressing. we could look at individuals, typical leftists, say ed schultz or chris (thrill up my leg) matthews, both these poor souls hyperventilate and foam at the mouth on a consistent basis, not sure what DSM-IV disorders they possess, but they are anything but happy. well, pretty sure you can see where this is going, i could list any number of other demographics groups that make up your global village with the same sort of results, but i know you fellas already have to deal with postpartum psychosis (liberal males suffer from this malady based on the suppressed gay/confused sexual identity gene prevalent in your subspecies) so we'll leave it there.

i know you're all familiar with the recent research by Columbia University which shows that a persons spirituality (religiosity) offers protection against depression. using new imaging techniques scientist have discovered that people who are spiritually predisposed have a thicker cortex, for the uniformed amongst you (regressives/leftists) the cerebral cortex is the brain's outermost layer made of gray matter that forms the organ's characteristic folds, areas of which are important hubs of neural activity for processes such as sensory perception, language and emotion.

being secular progessives, heathen compatriots or just plain lame athiests, you're all obviously part of the small cortex demographic. pretty depressing huh. psychotropic meds anyone?

How do you manage to claim moral superiority when you clearly have no sense of empathy?

 

[lotus503]

How do you manage to claim moral superiority when you clearly have no sense of empathy?

What I find interesting, when I think of conservatives and liberals, I tend to pull from the people I know, I think yeah my neighbor etc etc.

His examples were caricature TV/Radio personalities and I notice the most angry of both ends of the spectrum tend to gain a lot from TV/Radio etc.

They think its reflection of reality and society in general? who knows.

Most Conservative and Liberal people I know are nice/caring/productive people with flaws, severe lack of knowledge on issues, government, politics etc, But good people. Usually the pissers and moaners of life wouldn't be happy in either camp, angry, unhappy and general miserable people.

I bet most of the people in P&N are cool in their own right, they just go online and act like angry douche bags

 

[JulesMaximus]

You mean the state where obamacare is unrepealed and same-sex marriage is made legal in more states everyday?

Conservatives love to have something to bitch about. When dubya was Pres all they had to bitch about how the libural media always bashed him.

 

[Victorian Gray]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_USSR

Sure they were. Or at least they tried to be. Of course that attempt was an abject failure and led to millions starving to death.

Seems like what you are actually saying is that "True" communism is incompatible with reality.

The Soviet Union never claimed to be communist. It's official name was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. As I recollect there actually hasn't ever been a self-proclaimed communist country. All of the countries that are generally labeled as being 'communist' label themselves as countries modeled on socialist principles. They also seem like to style themselves as republics.

 

[Pocatello]

All politicians are greedy SOB, they want more power, more money, they don't like to share, they want you to share your wealth to them, they make very bad communists.

 

[row]

How do you manage to claim moral superiority when you clearly have no sense of empathy?

not sure when you ever saw me make that claim (even though true). but, i actually don't understand the question. the title of the thread is "Liberal men least happy", no? so all i did was give some info supporting that position. what i posted has little to do with empathy, mine, yours or others. being "progressive" (which is obviously what i'm making fun of) is a choice my friend, why would i empathize with someone who purposefully made a stupid one? especially a choice (once realized) that can be corrected on the spot, instantaneously. unless your argument is that progressives have no choice with regard to their political leanings? anyway Vic, if there was something i posted which you disagree with, be specific and i'll answer the question to the best of my inadequate (ask lotus) ability.

 

[UberNeuman]

not sure when you ever saw me make that claim (even though true). but, i actually don't understand the question. the title of the thread is "Liberal men least happy", no? so all i did was give some info supporting that position. what i posted has little to do with empathy, mine, yours or others. being "progressive" (which is obviously what i'm making fun of) is a choice my friend, why would i empathize with someone who purposefully made a stupid one? especially a choice (once realized) that can be corrected on the spot, instantaneously. unless your argument is that progressives have no choice with regard to their political leanings? anyway Vic, if there was something i posted which you disagree with, be specific and i'll answer the question to the best of my inadequate (ask lotus) ability.

Who were you 35, before you were banned or abandoned your previous membership?

\it's quite clear you've put far too much thought into it.
\\congrats on the long run on sentence....

 

[shadow9d9]

Not to pick on you specifically but...

Have you ever noticed how people are always so quick to just assume because it hasn't been done before it will never work. For a time, a long time, every major government in history was a monarchy or oligarchy or junta until suddenly they weren't when someone pulled off a successful broad scale representative democracy. It certainly wasn't the first time democracy had been tried, in fact it had several times before that been tried and failed to spread or jump from local to national level.

Having the capacity or technology is really neither here nor there for the Soviet Union, even if they didn't have the technology or infrastructure when the revolutions started there, they certainly did by their collapse. The bottom line is while the revolution may have started on socialist terms with socialist ideals, the government structure they imposed was so far removed from anything resembling socialism or communism to make the application of either label laughable. This is the same principle as the Democratic Republic of North Korea is neither democratic nor a republic regardless of what they call themselves. The situation was unique to Russia and born out an offshoot of communism which called for a vanguard party, a select group to lead the revolution, but who then has a vested interest in the revolution never ending. This is implicit within the stated idea of permanent revolution the Leninists seem to like.

As far as whether it works, that remains to be seen, doesn't it? What socialist is, at the most base level is democratic control of government and worker ownership of the means of production. A nationwide democracy hardly seems strange to us now, and as for workers controlling industry, well, we already see co-ops, as well as similar structures in mutual companies and things like credit unions. It certainly doesn't seem unfeasible that an economy could exist largely based around organizations like those instead of corporations. Technology has taken an interesting turn in this regard too with the rise of crowdsourcing as a viable mechanism for funding (so far) medium scale projects with, for example, Star Citizen having raised $35 Million and counting whereas previously such a project almost certainly would have required a major game studio to back it.

There is a lot to deal with here and it is definitely worth talking about. I wish it were a conversation in person.

A few comments.

The Soviet Union had many, many problems. The problem was more than just lacking technology. They lacked the ability to output food, let alone other things. They imported a majority of food, if I remember correctly. When they HAD the food, they did not have the infrastructure to get it out there to everyone. Then, you had the other problems, from the dictatorship to the corrupt bureaucrats, down to the mob bosses that ran the cities.

As for "democracy," the US runs a very, very loose representational "democracy." The link between the voice and the people is tenuous at best. The winner take all system certainly doesn't help, nor does the massive land size, or the insane differences throughout the country(Louisiana compared to NYC).

Star Citizen is, as far as I am concerned, will be a complete failure to many, many people. It is something that is banking on nostalgia of a name that has produced nothing of worth in well over a decade(1.5 if I recall), and is a game of scope that is trying to do everything for everyone. I do like Kickstarter, however, it has great potential for the future of videogaming in particular. This will only happen IF the first wave of games are spectacular. So far, they have not been.

As for why communism won't work, that is simply my personal opinion. It relies on the goodness of others to care for one another. Human beings, imo, are simply incapable of thinking outside of themselves. The problem is only us. Greed, jealousy, ego, etc prove on a daily basis that we are not capable of such an existence. Sure, there is a possibility that when we invent warp drive and the Vulcans visit us, and within 50 years poverty will vanish and we will unite as a people to better ourselves... I do not consider this a likely scenario, however.