• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Question for conservatives

Lutherf said:
Of the few commonalities between all liberals they're all tree hugging, gun hating pinko commies. Why do you feel that way?
Click to expand...

Please get it right - it's bleeding heart liberal tree hugger. :roll:
 
DamnYankee said:
Stupid question.
Click to expand...

Really idiotic question, I agree. How can conservatives be open to new experiences when fear is their motivator from everything from conservative rhetoric to their policy. I can empathize. I'd be afraid of my own shadow if every minute of the day I'm going to get beat up and lose my job to an illegal immigrant, who is also an antifa member.
 
Lutherf said:
Of the few commonalities between all liberals they're all tree hugging, gun hating pinko commies. Why do you feel that way?
Click to expand...

You left out: "weed-smoking welfare recipients who shop at Whole Foods and like to recycle".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Put (slightly?) another way: Cons say if it ain't broke then don't fix it, while libs say let's try to have the federal government fix it (the predictable and dependable?) anyway.
Click to expand...

So what's your saying is that despite their policies being proven harmful, like environmental deregulation and supply side economics, it's better to repeat the same thing over and over and to expect a different result. You realize what that's the definition of, right?
 
apdst said:
Liberals who don't want to own a gun want the government to ban gun ownership.
Click to expand...
Ban gun ownership? Nonsense. There is virtually ZERO support among "liberals" to abolish the 2A. There is, however, a LARGE MAJORITY of the American public (including MOST GOP'ers) that supports new/tougher regulations (i.e. "gun control"). Examples: A federal background check system. Limitations on magazine capacity. Restrictions on assault weapons. Federal database to track new sales. No fly-No buy. Strict restrictions for diagnosed Mental Health patients. etc.. All of the preceding are policy issues that enjoy MAJORITY support gagamong Dems and Pubs. And most of those are also supported by most gun owners and NRA members (regardless of party ID). The ONLY people who oppose them are far-right wing gun nuts, elected republicans, and the gun-lobbying industry.

Liberals who don't eat meat want the government to over-regulate the pork, beef and poultry industries.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. LOL. You don't mean "over-regulate". You mean "regulate", don't you? Please provide examples of this "over-regulation". What constitutes "over-regulation" of meat, anyway? This is just stupid. The population should be able to eat produce without fear of being poisoned. That's what regulations are for. And that's a good thing.

Liberals who believe in global warming want government to pass laws outlawing "climate denial".
- regulate the auto industry.
- regulate the energy sector.
- set limits on private power usage.
Click to expand...
Fiind me one example of a "liberal" who supports "outlawing climate denial". You won't do that....because you CAN'T do it. You're lying, and you know it. And...LOL, anti-science conservatives who do not "believe" in global warming do not deserve to be heard. And that's not intolerance. That's common sense.

Liberals don't like Christians, so they want Christianity stamped out; not only by government, but through public expression of their anti-Christian bigotry.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Just more irrational right wing stupidity. Liberals ARE Christians, too. If you don't realize that, you must be a brainwashed right wing Christian. There are, no doubt, a lot of people (hardly just "liberals") who view religion (not just Christianity) with disdain. But the religious bigotry of rightwingers like you is every bit as much a problem as the anti-relgious bigotry of non-religious people. If not moreso. As a lifelong NON-wingnut Christian, I must say that you and your ilk the biggest detriment to Christianity in our society today.

You can put just about every prohibition law in United States history at the doorstep of Liberals/Progressives.
Click to expand...
OK, what about Prohibition? Oh, sorry...that was't "liberals". That was conservatives.

Ok, what about anti-abortion laws prior to 1973 (i.e. Roe)? Oh, sorry again...that wasn't "liberals" either. That was conservatives.

So what "prohibition laws" in U.S. history might you be talking about, huh? Please, be candid in your response.

apdst said:
Can you prove it doesn't?

Why hell no, you can't. Because...you know it's true.
Click to expand...

:lamo

DifferentDrummr was actually being too nice to you.

It's not his job to disprove your fantasies. You just spit out a bunch of old, tired, right-wing, low-info talking points....and expected no one to challenge you, didn't you?

You KNOW you cannot back up your own empty-headed arguments, don't you?
 
Last edited:
Xelor said:
Red:
There is no assumption in the question the OP-er posed. Liberal are more open to new experiences, ideas and pretty much any and everything else than are conservatives:
It really is a fact that liberals are much higher than conservatives on a major personality trait called openness to experience. People who are high in openness to experience just crave novelty, variety, diversity, new ideas, travel. People low on it like things that are familiar, that are safe and dependable.
Click to expand...

Of course, political judgmental terminology taints, even spoils, what otherwise might be insightful studies. What some might term as a benign "openness to new ideas and experiences" another might term "a craving for novel stimulation and impulsive decision making". What is "conservative preferring regimentation" to some is to others the conservative preferences for the "systematic over the chaotic".

Besides you should have also linked to another study in behavioral genetics, that liberal "openness" is partially due to a variant, a mutation, in the dopamine receptor gene that blocks normal dopamine absorption. The gene is also associated with novelty seeking behavior, and is related to addictive needs for stimulus. At its most extreme it is associated with recklessness, extravagance, quick loss of temper, and antipathy to frustration. And so if the so-called thrill seeking "openness" is enhanced, psychologists also know it is inversely correlated with conscientiousness to others.

Hopefully science will find a cure the disabilities caused by the fat gene, short gene, and the liberal gene. Till then, all we can do is hold out hope for the afflicted, no? ;)
 
Last edited:
maxparrish said:
Of course, political judgmental terminology taints, even spoils, what otherwise might be insightful studies. What some might term as a benign "openness to new ideas and experiences" another might term "a craving for novel stimulation and impulsive decision making". What is "conservative preferring regimentation" to some is to others the conservative preferences for the "systematic over the chaotic".

Besides you should have also linked to another study in behavioral genetics, that liberal "openness" is partially due to a variant, a mutation, in the dopamine receptor gene that blocks normal dopamine absorption. The gene is also associated with novelty seeking behavior, and is related to addictive needs for stimulus. At its most extreme it is associated with recklessness, extravagance, quick loss of temper, and antipathy to frustration. And so if the so-called thrill seeking "openness" is enhanced, psychologists also know it is inversely correlated with conscientiousness to others.

Hopefully science will find a cure the disabilities caused by the fat gene, short gene, and the liberal gene. Till then, all we can do is hold out hope for the afflicted, no? ;)
Click to expand...

Red:
Why should I have done? You've noted such a study and it obviously didn't strike you as worthwhile to do so.
 
ultmd said:
Ban gun ownership? Nonsense. There is virtually ZERO support among "liberals" to abolish the 2A. There is, however, a LARGE MAJORITY of the American public (including MOST GOP'ers) that supports new/tougher regulations (i.e. "gun control"). Examples: A federal background check system. Limitations on magazine capacity. Restrictions on assault weapons. Federal database to track new sales. No fly-No buy. Strict restrictions for diagnosed Mental Health patients. etc.. All of the preceding are policy issues that enjoy MAJORITY support gagamong Dems and Pubs. And most of those are also supported by most gun owners and NRA members (regardless of party ID). The ONLY people who oppose them are far-right wing gun nuts, elected republicans, and the gun-lobbying industry.


Nonsense. LOL. You don't mean "over-regulate". You mean "regulate", don't you? Please provide examples of this "over-regulation". What constitutes "over-regulation" of meat, anyway? This is just stupid. The population should be able to eat produce without fear of being poisoned. That's what regulations are for. And that's a good thing.


Fiind me one example of a "liberal" who supports "outlawing climate denial". You won't do that....because you CAN'T do it. You're lying, and you know it. And...LOL, anti-science conservatives who do not "believe" in global warming do not deserve to be heard. And that's not intolerance. That's common sense.


Nonsense. Just more irrational right wing stupidity. Liberals ARE Christians, too. If you don't realize that, you must be a brainwashed right wing Christian. There are, no doubt, a lot of people (hardly just "liberals") who view religion (not just Christianity) with disdain. But the religious bigotry of rightwingers like you is every bit as much a problem as the anti-relgious bigotry of non-religious people. If not moreso. As a lifelong NON-wingnut Christian, I must say that you and your ilk the biggest detriment to Christianity in our society today.


OK, what about Prohibition? Oh, sorry...that was't "liberals". That was conservatives.

Ok, what about anti-abortion laws prior to 1973 (i.e. Roe)? Oh, sorry again...that wasn't "liberals" either. That was conservatives.

So what "prohibition laws" in U.S. history might you be talking about, huh? Please, be candid in your response.



:lamo

DifferentDrummr was actually being too nice to you.

It's not his job to disprove your fantasies. You just spit out a bunch of old, tired, right-wing, low-info talking points....and expected no one to challenge you, didn't you?

You KNOW you cannot back up your own empty-headed arguments, don't you?
Click to expand...

You just proved my point.
 
apdst said:
You just proved my point.
Click to expand...

:lamo
No. It might be expecting too much of you to realize it, but....you just proved mine.

You posted a screed of nonsensical right-wing "liberal" strawmen/talking-points....and when challenged to back them up, you pooped your pants.

So let's be clear about this. Not one "liberal" critique in your previous argument was valid. And we both know that's perfectly acceptable for you because it's what passes as winning rhetoric in the conservative circles that you come from. Isn't that right?
 
ultmd said:
:lamo
No. It might be expecting too much of you to realize it, but....you just proved mine.

You posted a screed of nonsensical right-wing "liberal" strawmen/talking-points....and when challenged to back them up, you pooped your pants.

So let's be clear about this. Not one "liberal" critique in your previous argument was valid. And we both know that's perfectly acceptable for you because it's what passes as winning rhetoric in the conservative circles that you come from. Isn't that right?
Click to expand...

The attitude of your post proves my point.
 
ultmd said:
Ban gun ownership? Nonsense. There is virtually ZERO support among "liberals" to abolish the 2A. There is, however, a LARGE MAJORITY of the American public (including MOST GOP'ers) that supports new/tougher regulations (i.e. "gun control"). Examples: A federal background check system. Limitations on magazine capacity. Restrictions on assault weapons. Federal database to track new sales. No fly-No buy. Strict restrictions for diagnosed Mental Health patients. etc.. All of the preceding are policy issues that enjoy MAJORITY support gagamong Dems and Pubs. And most of those are also supported by most gun owners and NRA members (regardless of party ID). The ONLY people who oppose them are far-right wing gun nuts, elected republicans, and the gun-lobbying industry.


Nonsense. LOL. You don't mean "over-regulate". You mean "regulate", don't you? Please provide examples of this "over-regulation". What constitutes "over-regulation" of meat, anyway? This is just stupid. The population should be able to eat produce without fear of being poisoned. That's what regulations are for. And that's a good thing.


Fiind me one example of a "liberal" who supports "outlawing climate denial". You won't do that....because you CAN'T do it. You're lying, and you know it. And...LOL, anti-science conservatives who do not "believe" in global warming do not deserve to be heard. And that's not intolerance. That's common sense.


Nonsense. Just more irrational right wing stupidity. Liberals ARE Christians, too. If you don't realize that, you must be a brainwashed right wing Christian. There are, no doubt, a lot of people (hardly just "liberals") who view religion (not just Christianity) with disdain. But the religious bigotry of rightwingers like you is every bit as much a problem as the anti-relgious bigotry of non-religious people. If not moreso. As a lifelong NON-wingnut Christian, I must say that you and your ilk the biggest detriment to Christianity in our society today.


OK, what about Prohibition? Oh, sorry...that was't "liberals". That was conservatives.

Ok, what about anti-abortion laws prior to 1973 (i.e. Roe)? Oh, sorry again...that wasn't "liberals" either. That was conservatives.

So what "prohibition laws" in U.S. history might you be talking about, huh? Please, be candid in your response.



:lamo

DifferentDrummr was actually being too nice to you.

It's not his job to disprove your fantasies. You just spit out a bunch of old, tired, right-wing, low-info talking points....and expected no one to challenge you, didn't you?

You KNOW you cannot back up your own empty-headed arguments, don't you?
Click to expand...

First paragraph... Incorrect.
 
Fledermaus said:
The Liberal State of Norway...

Haven't heard of it.

I know of a Kingdom of Norway...
Click to expand...

So now you're making a ridiculously forlorn ploy to demand an official name.

Okay, I've never heard of any "Libertarian - Right" individuals. Only those who are too ashamed to admit to being far right Republicans.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
So now you're making a ridiculously forlorn ploy to demand an official name.

Okay, I've never heard of any "Libertarian - Right" individuals. Only those who are too ashamed to admit to being far right Republicans.
Click to expand...

So, no Liberal countries....

And you obviously don't know any Libertarian - Right folks....
 
Xelor said:
Red:
Why should I have done? You've noted such a study and it obviously didn't strike you as worthwhile to do so.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I didn't think it needed for YOU. It seems my assumption was that you were sufficiently literate to have known of it yet willingly ignored it was an overly generous assumption of your learning. Therefore a link summing its content, the paper, and an opportunity to learn another perspective:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm

http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/friends_drd4_and_political_ideology.pdf

Now then, no more excuses for dodging, right?
 
Last edited:
DifferentDrummr said:
One of the few commonalities among all conservatives is that they prefer the predictable and dependable over new experiences. Liberals, of course, have the opposite preference.

So your question is: why do you feel such hostility to people who are more open to new experiences than you are?
Click to expand...

What progressives call "new experiences" are often just old warmed over failed worthless ideas still being promoted by people with bad judgments.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
One of the few commonalities among all conservatives is that they prefer the predictable and dependable over new experiences. Liberals, of course, have the opposite preference.

So your question is: why do you feel such hostility to people who are more open to new experiences than you are?
Click to expand...

Not all conservatives march in lockstep and act as described. It’s a broad brush to say otherwise.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
One of the few commonalities among all conservatives is that they prefer the predictable and dependable over new experiences. Liberals, of course, have the opposite preference.

So your question is: why do you feel such hostility to people who are more open to new experiences than you are?
Click to expand...
It's not that conservatives are not open to new experiences. It's that conservatives are smart enough to want a predictable outcome, instead of the bad things caused by liberal engineering. Choosing the safe ways of life instead of gambling.

DamnYankee said:
Stupid question.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.
 
maxparrish said:
You are correct, I didn't think it needed for YOU. It seems my assumption was that you were sufficiently literate to have known of it yet willingly ignored it was an overly generous assumption of your learning. Therefore a link summing its content, the paper, and an opportunity to learn another perspective:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm

Friendships Moderate an Association between a Dopamine Gene Variant and Political Ideology

Now then, no more excuses for dodging, right?
Click to expand...
Red:
Okay....TY.

Blue:
Literacy qualifies one's ability to use linguistic tools -- vocabulary, grammar, idiom, literary devices, etc. -- to aptly and accurately deliver and receive messages. (Fluency measures how literate one is in a given language.) Literacy measures not what or how much one has read (or written/uttered). "Well read" is the the term that describes what and how much one has read.

I am literate (in English) and I'm somewhat well read; however, neither status means/implies I (or any other literate, fluent and/or well read person) have read all there is to read. Accordingly, one cannot aptly/rationally assume another has read any specific document that isn't among the content often taught in school.

What documents might one reasonably assume others have read? Well, that depends on many factors such as, for example, on what matters the person tacitly or expressly holds him-/herself out to be fairly well informed.[SUP]1[/SUP] Documents one can reasonably assume any adult has read and comprehended are those that appear commonly in high school curricula: literature classics (or the Norton anthologies of English and American literature), a US history survey textbook, a world or European history survey textbook, physics, chemistry, and biology survey textbooks, algebra I and II, geometry, statistics and trigonometry textbooks, and at least some of the "great books." (See Note 1 below)


Note:
  1. Most folks, especially folks who bother to engage in discussions about politics and governance can be presumed to have read and analyzed most if not all of the following:
    • Republic
    • Metaphysics and Nicomachean Ethics
    • "Two Treatises"
    • Leviathan
    • On Liberty
    • The Social Contract
    • The Bible
    • Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles
    • The Prince
    • Democracy in America
    • Summaries of Kant, Hume, Bentham, Confucius, Lao Tse, Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Sartre.
    • Principles of macroeconomics and principles of microeconomics (no particular author)

Pink:
What?


Tan:
I was not aware of the paper you've referenced. Having now read it, I can assure you I wouldn't have referenced it. I wouldn't have because its authors state clearly that the paper is but an initial exposition of a hypothesis and the first test of it:
Here, we hypothesize that individuals with a genetic predisposition toward seeking out new experiences will tend to be more liberal, but only if they are embedded in a social context that provides them with multiple points of view. Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, we test this hypothesis by investigating an association between self-reported political ideology and the 7R variant of the dopamine receptor D4 gene (DRD4)...This is the first study to elaborate a specific gene-environment interaction that contributes to ideological self-identification...Thus, perhaps the most valuable contribution of this study is not to declare that ‘‘a gene was found’’ for anything, but rather, to provide the first evidence for a possible gene-environment interaction for political ideology.
-- Settle, et al, "Friendships Moderate an Association between a Dopamine Gene Variant and Political Ideology"​

Given that the study's authors are reticent to, based on their research, declare extant such a gene, why the hell would I, or anyone else unwilling to be taken as highly speculative and/or premature in forming conclusions and relying on their foundings, do so based on their research?

Moreover, the authors unequivocally state, "We do not claim [our findings prove] a causal relationship between DRD4 and political ideology." Despite their clear denial of a causal relationship, you chose to assert their work found one, writing, "'liberal "openness' is partially due to a variant, a mutation, in the dopamine receptor gene that blocks normal dopamine absorption."
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
It's not that conservatives are not open to new experiences. It's that conservatives are smart enough to want a predictable outcome, instead of the bad things caused by liberal engineering. Choosing the safe ways of life instead of gambling.
Click to expand...

Opting for a new experience always involves some level of risk (IOW, gambling), doesn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom