Federalism Is Our Way Of Government

Furion

Well-known member
Americans are still pretty free..

Then why do atheists continue to call America a backwards religious country?

It appears America is free because of christians.

If it were up to you people would be forced into many things, like vaccines, views on babies and forced groupthink about elections.

It's a good thing christians are here, otherwise you'd be living in a leftist paradise of policing opinions and bodies.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Then why do atheists continue to call America a backwards religious country?

It appears America is free because of christians.

If it were up to you people would be forced into many things, like vaccines, views on babies and forced groupthink about elections.

It's a good thing christians are here, otherwise you'd be living in a leftist paradise of policing opinions and bodies.
Absolutely! Our friends on the left took George Orwells "1984" as a how to!
 

Thistle

Well-known member
It's a worry they don't recognize their Orwellian ways.

It's downright scary they do but don't give a damn.
It's a scientifically proven fact that the problem with the left is that they have a defective view of morality. See the study.


"Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally."
 

Furion

Well-known member
It's a scientifically proven fact that the problem with the left is that they have a defective view of morality. See the study.


"Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally."

Narcissism can explain a lot.

Real empathy may eliminate ones concerns, one may need to damage oneself to help another.

The illegals in NY being a good example.

They bleat their support until it costs them. And then their true narcissism appears.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Narcissism can explain a lot.

Real empathy may eliminate ones concerns, one may need to damage oneself to help another.

The illegals in NY being a good example.

They bleat their support until it costs them. And then their true narcissism appears.
The Internet could not possibly hold all of the examples that could be given to prove your point.
 

Michael R2

Well-known member
It's a scientifically proven fact that the problem with the left is that they have a defective view of morality. See the study.


"Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally."
Wow. Liberals and conservatives view the world differently. Are you really surprised?
BTW, the abstract did not use the word 'defective'.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Wow. Liberals and conservatives view the world differently. Are you really surprised?
BTW, the abstract did not use the word 'defective'.
If there are five foundations of morality and liberals only consult two of them, I'll let you substitute the word that is appropriate.
 

Michael R2

Well-known member
If there are five foundations of morality and liberals only consult two of them, I'll let you substitute the word that is appropriate.
The 'five foundations' are a construct of the researchers and not objective principles. The abstract did not say liberals consulted only two of their 'foundations' but showed greater endorsement of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity 'foundations'.
Honestly, it sounds like an interesting study. If you happen to have access to it without me having to buy it, I would love to see how the questions are framed.
 
Last edited:

Thistle

Well-known member
The 'five foundations' are a construct of the researchers and not objective principles. The abstract did not say liberals consulted only two of their 'foundations' but showed greater endorsement of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity 'foundations'.
Honestly, it sounds like an interesting study. If you happen to have access to it without me having to buy it, I would love to see how the questions are framed.
I'm not sure I can get to it. However I think if you have a relatively recent browser which I do not, you could Google the string "moral foundations test" and could probably get one of their tests so you can take yourself. I happen to be using a very antiquated iPad, that is primitive enough that it will not take a newer browser, or an update of its iOS for that matter.
 

Michael R2

Well-known member
I'm not sure I can get to it. However I think if you have a relatively recent browser which I do not, you could Google the string "moral foundations test" and could probably get one of their tests so you can take yourself. I happen to be using a very antiquated iPad, that is primitive enough that it will not take a newer browser, or an update of its iOS for that matter.
I had to add University of Virginia to the search, but I found it. I'll be reading for a while.

 

Thistle

Well-known member
It's always best to get to the meat of the article, rather than rely on headlines, if you can.
I just finished the study. Very worthwhile and very enlightening. The observations about libertarians are particularly interesting. It may indicate that they might need to expand the foundation discussion or it may indicate that conservatives and libertarians are bedfellows of convenience.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
The Bobulinski Interview. Biden family coruption and election interference included. Must watch. I would put up a thread but am strapped for time the next few days.

 

Michael R2

Well-known member
I just finished the study. Very worthwhile and very enlightening. The observations about libertarians are particularly interesting. It may indicate that they might need to expand the foundation discussion or it may indicate that conservatives and libertarians are bedfellows of convenience.
I'm re-reading it. I'm only so-so when it comes to the behavioral sciences. One reason is you have to use far too many assumptions and include far too many 'latent variable models' to be precise. Still, most studies I have read (including this one) do a decent job of fairness in the statistics.
The big question, however, is the questions themselves. For example, in this study:

Whether or not someone did something disgusting; or
Whether or not someone did something unnatural or degrading

the terms used seem designed to evoke the disparate responses rather than determine if there are disparate responses.

At least that's how I see it, and why my prof gave me c's and d's.

Still, overall, it was an interesting read.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
I'm re-reading it. I'm only so-so when it comes to the behavioral sciences. One reason is you have to use far too many assumptions and include far too many 'latent variable models' to be precise. Still, most studies I have read (including this one) do a decent job of fairness in the statistics.
The big question, however, is the questions themselves. For example, in this study:

Whether or not someone did something disgusting; or
Whether or not someone did something unnatural or degrading

the terms used seem designed to evoke the disparate responses rather than determine if there are disparate responses.

At least that's how I see it, and why my prof gave me c's and d's.

Still, overall, it was an interesting read.
Interesting, to me your examples seem to be a visceral and more objective statement of the same thing. Where are the real distinction has to do with whether or not this is morally significant in either case. As I recall there was some discussion about how to phrase many of these questions to avoid any connection to examples which had been politicized in anyway.

But going back to my college statistics, I think my professor liked me because he would fill up eight chalkboards worth of notes every single session, and I was one of the few people in the class who actually could transcribe at the rate that he could scratch that stuff out on the chalkboard. He had four chalkboards abreast in the lecture hall and four pull down chalkboards above those.

If you could remember what those notes meant you were golden and his course.
 

Michael R2

Well-known member
Interesting, to me your examples seem to be a visceral and more objective statement of the same thing. Where are the real distinction has to do with whether or not this is morally significant in either case. As I recall there was some discussion about how to phrase many of these questions to avoid any connection to examples which had been politicized in anyway.
I wouldn't call the words disgusting, unnatural or degrading objective. However, they did do a decent job of keeping political tangents down.
But going back to my college statistics, I think my professor liked me because he would fill up eight chalkboards worth of notes every single session, and I was one of the few people in the class who actually could transcribe at the rate that he could scratch that stuff out on the chalkboard. He had four chalkboards abreast in the lecture hall and four pull down shot boards above those.

If you could remember what those notes meant you were golden and his course.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
I wouldn't call the words disgusting,
Disgusting says something about my emotional reaction.
unnatural or degrading objective.
Assuming that "sanctity" is a proper moral category then "unnatural" and "degrading" are objective as measured by necessary moral reasoning. So the fact that I am disgusted by something that is unnatural tells a third person that I have the proper moral sentiments to engage in correct moral reasoning.

This goes back to the teaching of Plato. If you cannot love that which is lovely, loath that which is loathsome, and despise that which is despicable, then you will never make any advancement in the area of moral reason. That lack of sensitivity would render you completely blind to the domain of morality.
However, they did do a decent job of keeping political tangents down.
Agreed
 
Top