On what neuroscience tells us about liberal thinking....

[schmuckley]

1)"Trickle-down economics" Is a failure
2) Perhaps the morality appeals to people more because actually man is created in the image of God,and people realize the fallacies of denying Him.
3) Without God,there is no absolute good or truth.

 

[Moonbeam]

Inequality can be the moral outcome of a fair system and a desireable thing of itself. Changing it to relieve those whose actions or behaviors resulted in the inequality can itself be an injustice. There's no point in having rules if after things are run you simply arbitrarily decide the result isn't fair after the fact and reallocate the prizes.

I appreciate the moral argument you present. I can see the appeal. I would argue that a system whose outcomes are deemed to reflect the relative moral value of the participants is dangerously naïve. I would argue also that if there are those who fail because of undesirable traits, the system may also be changed so that those faults are produced less frequently.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'd phrase it "How to boil a frog?"

This is a contest of wanting different things, and fighting to get them. What you are describing is merely a plot, though a positively peaceful one, to get what you want over what we want.

At least in this, your method allows for a civilized discussion. That's a good place to start, regardless of who wins.

My position is that we are all the same and that what I want is what you want. The real question is, which of us knows what we really desire. I believe that what everybody wants, whether they know it or not, is the immortality produced by being in love. when the lover and the beloved are one.

 

[Moonbeam]

1)"Trickle-down economics" Is a failure
2) Perhaps the morality appeals to people more because actually man is created in the image of God,and people realize the fallacies of denying Him.
3) Without God,there is no absolute good or truth.

I think you have a point but I don't know if 1 is a rejection of TD eco, or what 2 means exactly.

 

[chucky2]

You understand, I hope, that you can't create the reality that everyone understands what you say they understand by making that declaration. Snip...

I'm fairly sure without starting a poll, that save for a small few retards here that latch onto your schtick because it strokes their ego, that the vast vast majority of folks would agree with me in saying We understand you are posting for attention. It is why your emo rage end of last year was both so entertaining and worrying (in a general 'Will we read about this person in the news soon' sense), with others picking up on it.

I know where you're coming from.

Err, no, I doubt that very much, but that's why I like reading your stuff, it's what you think you know that provides the entertainment! :thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm fairly sure without starting a poll, that save for a small few retards here that latch onto your schtick because it strokes their ego, that the vast vast majority of folks would agree with me in saying We understand you are posting for attention. It is why your emo rage end of last year was both so entertaining and worrying (in a general 'Will we read about this person in the news soon' sense), with others picking up on it.



Err, no, I doubt that very much, but that's why I like reading your stuff, it's what you think you know that provides the entertainment! :thumbsup:

When a monkey in fun tries to frighten his fellow monkeys by wearing the skin of a fox, all manner of monkeys will scatter to the trees, but not the monkey who knows what it is to be a monkey. He will recognize the monkey behind the fox skin because he knows what it is to be a monkey. So if you want to rally your vast majority to hoot from the trees know that it is fine by me. I may wear the face of a human, but I have seen your monkey in me. I have known, forever now, the reaction of monkeys to their own face and that you can do nothing but take to the jungle gym. We are all the same but since you don't know it, you can't swing from the tree of knowledge. You will not see your own sin.

Attention, I need your attention. Over here I offer you the universe, but you just wanted to chuckle. Have this banana. In a moment you'll feel fully self-satisfied and as right as rain.

Now tell me more about my need for attention and how you can see through my game. Yes, please announce again to us all your deep perspicacity.

My point in this thread was to express the validity of the moral values that conservatives defend. Your aim, it appears, is to draw attention to me. It should be clear from that, I should think, why you see me as needing attention. You appear to be the one with that need, you and a few other clowns like your alt weak fin soup above who claims to have been to Asia recently and has never been out of his mother's basement.

Wouldn't want you to think your clown acts don't amuse me.

 

[chucky2]

See, now that was better, perhaps a solid 5/10. Keep it at that level and all is well... :thumbsup:

 

[row]

a clown looking for a circus

 

[sportage]

Seems to me conservatives idea of moral is yet to be defined.
So what is moral? What is conservative?
Conservatives create some heavenly illusion of morality that they themselves have no chance of achieving nor living up to.
Conservatives, some, most, create this illusion of morality that they themselves fail to understand the true concept of.
But what they do do with this illusion of morality is to hold everyone else up to its standards.
Which is a joke because conservatives cannot possibly hold themselves up to to the standard they have created.
I guess that is what pisses them off, and why they are the way they are?

So what are conservative morals?
Well, again, that is whatever conservatives twist this belief into being.
Feeding the poor would surely be thought of as moral.
Jesus feed the poor.
Yet, so called moral conservative support cutting the poor off the safety net.

Clean air and water would be moral. A clean earth as God did create.
Yet moral conservatives disrespect agencies such as the EPA.
And current republican candidates for office feel that the EPA should be ended.
I wonder which side Jesus would align with for a clean earth and clean environment?

Conservatives believe in morals only until they personally feel the necessity to break away from those morals.
Clean environment. Feeding the poor. Helping those disfranchised in society.
That old TO BE CHRIST LIKE theory.

Conservatives have no idea of what it means to be moral. Nor are they. For the most part.
Conservatives simply create this twisted illusion of morality only to hit others over the head with.

To claim morality only to treat others as immoral is not moral.
Moral conservatives think they own this ideal and definition of morality.
But believing they own morality is in itself their exposed immorality.
In other words, they don't know shit when it comes to morality...
Physician, heal thyself.

 

[werepossum]

This is your brain on drugs . . .

 

[ivwshane]

liberal thinking and behavior is rooted in elementary school yard behavior and antics. Liberals are in a perpetual state of immaturity and complete lack of intellectual application. They are child like in their endless complaining / wants and wishes. And expect the elders to pay for / supply their every desire. And even though they are now adults they are still barely adolescent in their thinking and grasp on reality which is often characterized by their selective indignation and endless symbolism over substance and agenda based grievance mongering.

Either you are completely unaware of what irony is or you have mastered irony beyond what was once thought incapable by humans!

 

[crashtech]

I've enjoyed reading this thread. I have Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" on my Kindle but have been reading more escapist fare lately. Being too serious about politics etc. fatigues my mind and I have been so, so tired lately. As a conservative libertarian who not only listens to NPR but finds stories on Drudge, I think I may slowly, finally be making peace with the raucous contraption that is our political system. It is so gratifying to see a participant, who I thought was one of the more polarizing figures, post material relating to Haidt's work. This can only be a good thing.

 

[bradly1101]

Seems to me conservatives idea of moral is yet to be defined.
So what is moral? What is conservative?
Conservatives create some heavenly illusion of morality that they themselves have no chance of achieving nor living up to.
Conservatives, some, most, create this illusion of morality that they themselves fail to understand the true concept of.
But what they do do with this illusion of morality is to hold everyone else up to its standards.
Which is a joke because conservatives cannot possibly hold themselves up to to the standard they have created.
I guess that is what pisses them off, and why they are the way they are?

So what are conservative morals?
Well, again, that is whatever conservatives twist this belief into being.
Feeding the poor would surely be thought of as moral.
Jesus feed the poor.
Yet, so called moral conservative support cutting the poor off the safety net.

Clean air and water would be moral. A clean earth as God did create.
Yet moral conservatives disrespect agencies such as the EPA.
And current republican candidates for office feel that the EPA should be ended.
I wonder which side Jesus would align with for a clean earth and clean environment?

Conservatives believe in morals only until they personally feel the necessity to break away from those morals.
Clean environment. Feeding the poor. Helping those disfranchised in society.
That old TO BE CHRIST LIKE theory.

Conservatives have no idea of what it means to be moral. Nor are they. For the most part.
Conservatives simply create this twisted illusion of morality only to hit others over the head with.

To claim morality only to treat others as immoral is not moral.
Moral conservatives think they own this ideal and definition of morality.
But believing they own morality is in itself their exposed immorality.
In other words, they don't know shit when it comes to morality...
Physician, heal thyself.

Greed was a deadly sin, now it appears to drive a new morality.

If society has been good to you, do you owe something back or does the morality of greed rule?

 

[crashtech]

Just as a footnote, as an agnostic, I don't believe any of my beliefs that might be considered conservative have any overt religious basis whatever. Perhaps some of them are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but the same could be asserted of many beliefs asserted by liberals as well. I think it is probably not the best use of time to make caricatures and create straw men of one's opponents, better to try harder to listen to what the person is actually saying instead of what you imagine they mean.

 

[werepossum]

Greed was a deadly sin, now it appears to drive a new morality.

If society has been good to you, do you owe something back or does the morality of greed rule?

lol "I want your stuff" used to be the definition of greed. Now it's entitlement.

 

[Greenman]

Just as a footnote, as an agnostic, I don't believe any of my beliefs that might be considered conservative have any overt religious basis whatever. Perhaps some of them are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but the same could be asserted of many beliefs asserted by liberals as well. I think it is probably not the best use of time to make caricatures and create straw men of one's opponents, better to try harder to listen to what the person is actually saying instead of what you imagine they mean.

I think you misunderstand Moonie. He needs to present "proof" about conservatives being inferior so he can feel better about himself. He needs positive reinforcement, he needs to be right.
The conservatives cooties thing is right out of the KKK play book. Go read it again and substitute black for conservative, it's all the same stuff with a different wrapper. I guess good material plays to any audience.

 

[lopri]

I glanced through the OP but I do not see any citation or even a reference. Is the whole thing meant to be an opinion? Fiction? Or something else altogether, perhaps something post-modern?

 

[Moonbeam]

I glanced through the OP but I do not see any citation or even a reference. Is the whole thing meant to be an opinion? Fiction? Or something else altogether, perhaps something post-modern?

From the OP: "Because my intent is to address liberals , I will not try to prove this here because the liberal mind is supposed to be amenable to scientific reasoning and the research is out there. Anybody who has doubts about this can check out the work of Jonathan Haidt."

 

[Moonbeam]

Just as a footnote, as an agnostic, I don't believe any of my beliefs that might be considered conservative have any overt religious basis whatever. Perhaps some of them are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but the same could be asserted of many beliefs asserted by liberals as well. I think it is probably not the best use of time to make caricatures and create straw men of one's opponents, better to try harder to listen to what the person is actually saying instead of what you imagine they mean.

Thank you for your two, I think, fair minded posts I don't believe that ever conservative would have to hold to the full spectrum of potential conservative moral concerns and the fact that you are an agnostic probably rules out a number of those which are often reflected in religious belief. Non-authoritarian Liberals are not unlike Libertarians in many ways. You sound more pragmatic than many an ideology.

I would say also, you would be wise to stick to your own lights and not pay Greenman much mind. It rather looks as if he has an ax to grind.

 

[OverVolt]

The words are english for sure but its like moonbeam and sportage are on the same, incomprehensible wavelength.

 

[MagickMan]

I glanced through the OP but I do not see any citation or even a reference. Is the whole thing meant to be an opinion? Fiction? Or something else altogether, perhaps something post-modern?

Some of it he makes up on the spur of the moment, other parts he distorts from fringe pseudo-science "journals", it all depends on whatever batshit-crazy impulse he feels like expressing at the time. It's all as valid as Creationist "scientific theory", and nearly as comical.

 

[crashtech]

It's likely I won't participate too much in political discussions. What happens is that other participants will quickly classify you and you'll be stuck on one side or the other of all these imaginary battle lines. In my last forum experience I left my "side's" position but was never really welcome anywhere else; what happens in no man's land is that everyone attacks you, so I hope I have learned my lesson.

If the intent is not to engage those with differing ideologies, then this discussion has little significance. But for those who do, the first step is to make a good faith to understand your opponent, and with understanding may come a re-humanization of them, if you will. I thought that was what I was seeing here in this post, though it is likely I am mistaken. It may be naive, but to view any moderation in views or rhetoric as an open channel instead of a trick might just be fruitful. Those who wish to engage and even persuade their ideological opponents instead of preaching to the choir might do well to check out the works of J. Haidt on their own, the take offered by the OP is not definitive, to say the least.

 

[michal1980]

It's likely I won't participate too much in political discussions. What happens is that other participants will quickly classify you and you'll be stuck on one side or the other of all these imaginary battle lines. In my last forum experience I left my "side's" position but was never really welcome anywhere else; what happens in no man's land is that everyone attacks you, so I hope I have learned my lesson.

If the intent is not to engage those with differing ideologies, then this discussion has little significance. But for those who do, the first step is to make a good faith to understand your opponent, and with understanding may come a re-humanization of them, if you will. I thought that was what I was seeing here in this post, though it is likely I am mistaken. It may be naive, but to view any moderation in views or rhetoric as an open channel instead of a trick might just be fruitful. Those who wish to engage and even persuade their ideological opponents instead of preaching to the choir might do well to check out the works of J. Haidt on their own, the take offered by the OP is not definitive, to say the least.

the liberals here like moonie are hell bent on de-humanizing anyone that doesn't think like them.

 

[Moonbeam]

crashtech: It's likely I won't participate too much in political discussions. What happens is that other participants will quickly classify you and you'll be stuck on one side or the other of all these imaginary battle lines. In my last forum experience I left my "side's" position but was never really welcome anywhere else; what happens in no man's land is that everyone attacks you, so I hope I have learned my lesson.

M: This I believe, is a natural and intelligent position to take and it describes quite accurately the inevitable course of events that take place. Where we differ, perhaps, is that I have known these things for a long time and have, in my personal search for self understanding lost any need I once had to be welcome. I found 1, in the truth I have validated regarding the source of human suffering, the fact of our unconscious and deeply repressed self hate and how it drives a need for conformity, and 2, a prison from which knowledge of these inner facts sets one free is a joy of revelation so great as to wipe any worry of non acceptance away.

I spent my early life in the very denial from which my wish is to set others free. In short the acceptance of self that I have reached causes me to wish that joy on others. And I know the price one has to pay and having paid it, nobody can now charge me more. Any lingering resentment I would have for others, because they are bitter and mean themselves, without that treasure, is only that self hate for myself that may still lie uncovered.

In short the words and opinions of others designed to ridicule and deprecate are the self hate of others projected, and they do no damage whatsoever but touch and awaken the damage that lies buried within us since we were children. You will have all of that damage and rage thrown in your face if you try to awaken the conscious awareness of folk so they too can begin to function with wisdom. So if not me than who?

c: If the intent is not to engage those with differing ideologies, then this discussion has little significance. But for those who do, the first step is to make a good faith to understand your opponent, and with understanding may come a re-humanization of them, if you will. I thought that was what I was seeing here in this post, though it is likely I am mistaken. It may be naive, but to view any moderation in views or rhetoric as an open channel instead of a trick might just be fruitful.

M: I am actually not interested much in ideologies. One of the results of self hate, obviously is self loathing. I happen to know how deep the sadness goes that this brings, a sadness so profound that one could not function as a child and survive if one can't repress it. All of us are survivors, but we survive with a breathing tube. We find some way, personal achievements, good deeds, family loyalty, membership in some group that is honored, etc., to survive. Conformity to an external to which we attach value is what we go for when we lose real self respect and to which we can become fanatically, even dangerously attached. The conservative lurch to the right that we here in the US have been experiencing for quite some number of years happens to present a cogent example of the irrationality such phenomena take.

As for you, I am very happy to note that you could be idealistic and hopeful, even if the inevitable self doubt has crept in. I believe that these feelings are the remnants of a time when as children we felt oceanic love. Love is never lost, it can only be deeply buried. I believe

c: Those who wish to engage and even persuade their ideological opponents instead of preaching to the choir might do well to check out the works of J. Haidt on their own, the take offered by the OP is not definitive, to say the least.

M: My effort here was to reach liberals who are as deaf to the moral underpinnings of conservative thinking as conservatives are blind to their own forms of bigotry and are additionally hooked on the notion that conservative are stupid because they can't reason logically. That a lot of conservative shit throwing apes would show up is to be expected. Jackals are attracted to the lion's table. My assurance that we hate ourselves is not a pleasant fact, but it explains the world we see, a world that will remain as miserable for every child born into it for as long as we survive as a species, unless we begin to address that reality. Humanity may evolve to become what we can't imagine or end up on the ant heap. I believe we become what we fear and what we fear is destruction by the other, the other we will not see is nothing at all but our own self hate. I am the other the moment I mention this stuff but what to do, we face extinction.

 

[Moonbeam]

the liberals here like moonie are hell bent on de-humanizing anyone that doesn't think like them.

You have been dehumanized. You imagine I am dehumanizing you by telling you that fact. You don't want to believe this because the pain that caused your dehumanization was tremendous. Actually it was nothing much, but it feels tremendous because as a child you had none of the rationalization tools you have today and were wide open emotionally. Without defense, your pain meter was easily pegged.