Whopper you are correct that there are various groups that fall under the umbrella of conservative. The intellectuals of the party tend to be the pro free market (anti socialism) group and tends to be made up of professionals (doctors, attorneys, business people, etc.) You correctly pointed out that most tend to be for a mixed economy. They are not generally for laissez faire capitalism in other words. Conservative (or evangelical) Christians are another important group of conservatives. I know most liberals already know this, but their condescension toward this group does them little good. The hypocrisy of speaking the way the left does about Christians while simultaneously holding views completely opposite when it comes to Muslims is not lost on as many people as they may believe. Uneducated lower SES (“redneck”) people are probably the other largest group in the conservative camp. Their reasons for not liking people like Hillary, Barack, or Kerry are fairly obvious.
Myself-I think I'm a moderate but only say that cause when you dissect my political stances none of them are consistently on one side and I don't think one political group has it all correct.
But it's not just the Right. As you said and I completely agree it's all sides. E.g. environmentalists that want to use corn ethanol when it turns out that ethanol actually uses more energy to make than it produces. But you tell some guy wearing hemp clothes, doesn't know science, and they blow up in anger. I remember back when Air America was on they kept airing commercials to shut down the nuclear reactor powering half of NYC without mentioning the CO2 free energy it was producing.
I have been surrounded by political “foes” for 4 years. Not much to learn.
I went a solid 3 years of working with one of my co-residents before I found out she was a creationist.
Religious conservatives are perhaps the most condescending group of them all. Some literally believe that they are on the side of God. I've heard some call political opponents sinners or immoral.
Christian conservatives have more sway than any other religious group in American. They were the biggest supporters of discrimination against LGBT Americans. Other religious conservatives are of much smaller numbers in the United States and don't have the same amount of damaging political power.
I'm not political. I'm for justice and fairness for all. I'm also a data-ist, I look at facts to make conclusions and shun sweeping biased statements. (I dislike the media because they make it near impossible to know the facts.) Now I'm not defending one group or another, but you're statement that "They were the biggest supporters of discrimination against LGBT Americans" is sounding like a very biased CNN news-bite. Can you provide the data?
Yowza. How'd that work out for ya?
See that is the condescension that I find irritating and in many cases it is ironic because the person being condescending does not actually understand evolution themselves. I have spoken with many liberal "Christians are ignorant" types who then do not know the simple fact that humans are a great ape species. Many of them do not understand the extremely fundamental fact that the environment directly influences the traits that species evolve. Many, strangely enough, do not understand the simple fact that even members of the same species, humans for example, will evolve different traits if they evolve in quite different environments. To me, a person implying they are superior to religionists because they believe in evolution, but then do not actually understand it at even fundamental levels, is sort of pitiful and should be pointed out when it occurs.Yowza. How'd that work out for ya?
See that is the condescension that I find irritating and in many cases it is ironic because the person being condescending does not actually understand evolution themselves. I have spoken with many liberal "Christians are ignorant" types who then do not know the simple fact that humans are a great ape species. Many of them do not understand the extremely fundamental fact that the environment directly influences the traits that species evolve. Many, strangely enough, do not understand the simple fact that even members of the same species, humans for example, will evolve different traits if they evolve in quite different environments. To me, a person implying they are superior to religionists because they believe in evolution, but then do not actually understand it at even fundamental levels, is sort of pitiful and should be pointed out when it occurs.
As long as you don't use your fairy tales to legislate my rights, you can believe whatever you want.
Re: cartoon
I agree that high level politicians such as US senators should be highly educated. Again that is a problem on both sides unfortunately. The guy currently running against Ted Cruz only has a bachelors degree while Cruz has a law degree from Harvard. I believe it is completely reasonable to expect the people that are running the country to be highly educated.
Re: cartoon
I agree that high level politicians such as US senators should be highly educated. Again that is a problem on both sides unfortunately. The guy currently running against Ted Cruz only has a bachelors degree while Cruz has a law degree from Harvard. I believe it is completely reasonable to expect the people that are running the country to be highly educated.
You can laugh all you want but I have said for years that high level politicians should be highly educated. It’s not a strange position to hold.lol. Wut.
You can laugh all you want but I have said for years that high level politicians should be highly educated. It’s not a strange position to hold.
Ok, enough with this discussion. It is obvious you are not interested in having any sort of real discussion, just partisan bickering. I guarantee you that if I had originally responded to the inane cartoon with a message reading "high level politicians can be uneducated or mildly educated (bachelors) and that is fine", you would have argued with that too, so there is no winning. We can continue to elect mildly educated candidates but then people need to stop complaining about the quality of our politicians.That guy went to Columbia, for all that matters.
Your point is neither here nor there (trying to be serious). There are plenty of "highly educated" (i.e got a "high" degree) with awfully wacky beliefs (Ben Carson, anyone?) that, in an ideal world, would disqualify them from running for office. The President, for Christ's sake, called global warming a "Chinese hoax".
In any case, not to derail the thread, the point is that it's not about the degree that you have.
To clarify my position a bit, I just posted the cartoon because it echoed what another poster said. There's an XKCD cartoon for so many scenarios in life, and I like to pull them out when relevant. I've worked hard to know as many of these cartoons as possible so I can find them when needed.Re: cartoon
Wilf was the guy in here with the "Ted Cruz for President" avatar back in 2016 if you'd like a point of reference for what you're reading.lol. Wut.
I'm not political. I'm for justice and fairness for all. I'm also a data-ist, I look at facts to make conclusions and shun sweeping biased statements. (I dislike the media because they make it near impossible to know the facts.) Now I'm not defending one group or another, but you're statement that "They were the biggest supporters of discrimination against LGBT Americans" is sounding like a very biased CNN news-bite. Can you provide the data?
See that is the condescension that I find irritating and in many cases it is ironic because the person being condescending does not actually understand evolution themselves. I have spoken with many liberal "Christians are ignorant" types who then do not know the simple fact that humans are a great ape species. Many of them do not understand the extremely fundamental fact that the environment directly influences the traits that species evolve. Many, strangely enough, do not understand the simple fact that even members of the same species, humans for example, will evolve different traits if they evolve in quite different environments. To me, a person implying they are superior to religionists because they believe in evolution, but then do not actually understand it at even fundamental levels, is sort of pitiful and should be pointed out when it occurs.
That statement/sentiment right there is what makes the left’s views on and intense defense of Muslims so perplexing. Why does the left save most of their religious disdain for Christians?That doesn't come close to the condescension that some religious conservatives exhibit when they say that God is on their side and that they know The Truth.
So you agree that religious conservatives can be the most condescending of all?That statement/sentiment right there is what makes the left’s views on and intense defense of Muslims so perplexing. Why does the left save most of their religious disdain for Christians?
Back when I was young and thought it was “smart” to be atheist and against religion, I was much more consistent. I would rail against all of the major religions. That’s part of why I liked Christopher Hitchens and Bill Maher and Sam Harris so much back when I was in my 20s. (I still like reading Christopher Hitchens.)
See that is the condescension that I find irritating and in many cases it is ironic because the person being condescending does not actually understand evolution themselves. I have spoken with many liberal "Christians are ignorant" types who then do not know the simple fact that humans are a great ape species. Many of them do not understand the extremely fundamental fact that the environment directly influences the traits that species evolve. Many, strangely enough, do not understand the simple fact that even members of the same species, humans for example, will evolve different traits if they evolve in quite different environments. To me, a person implying they are superior to religionists because they believe in evolution, but then do not actually understand it at even fundamental levels, is sort of pitiful and should be pointed out when it occurs.
As long as you don't use your fairy tales to legislate my rights, you can believe whatever you want.
Just so everyone knows. The internet is a series of tubes.
Marry meh plz.
No forreal tho.
Is it just me or is this somewhat troubling for someone whose work is going to be related to insight about the human condition?
Yowza. How'd that work out for ya?
Why is that troubling? The majority of people at my school have the same positions as each other, and the majority of those positions are based on faulty or incomplete assumptions. At least I listened to their ideas. I weighed them and modified my stance when appropriate. If everyone brings the same dogma to the table, how is it actually possible for me to learn anything new? That is probably what bothered me the most, the absence of original thought and the complete repudiation of dissenting opinion. I honestly find it more troubling that people so close-minded are going into the field honestly.
Oh the irony.
You roasted me there.
OK, I guess I will be a little more specific. I recently went to a PsychSIGN event-which is like the student branch of the APA-and the keynote presentation was on microaggressions. I strained my eyes they rolled so hard. I just DK what is up with social sciences getting so far up in psychiatry. It is like for every time a well thought-out psychiatric study is published (like DBS for treatment resistant depression or something similar) there greater noise for theories that are completely untestable, unrepeatable junk-science. *Old man yells at clouds*
It's especially hard to be a moderate these days, with both parties preferring to run as far to the outside of their positions as they can.