Because someone doesn't share your political views you assume they lack empathy? Isn't it possible that someone could have all the empathy in the world yet not believe what you believe?
Optimist/Pessimist and Liberal/Conservative
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
I try to examine every side to a story before making a final decision about most issues. That way I can change from either consevative or liberal as how the subject matter is being proposed.
Last edited:
I don't think the words "conservative" and "liberal" describe any politically coherent or identifiable group of people in the US.
The personal happiness of those who are, in their personal lives, more conservative or more liberal, is hard to gauge.
People with stable marriages and lots of friends in a prosperous community of kindred souls who respect them might tend to score happier on questionnaires. And Christians among other traditionalists are enjoined - as a matter of faith - to be happy: unhappiness reveals a dissatisfaction with the world as a manifestation of God's plan.
That sounds conservative to me, as a general leaning.
But considering a specific happy event: the "happiness" of the faction that was celebrating Mission Accomplished a few years ago - and I mean whooping it up, shooting off fireworks, big smiles on TV and congratulations all around, parties and celebrations, even legislative threats toward the unpatriotically unhappy, toward the pessimistic naysayers walking around with their long faces and warnings of doom - to the extent that giddy joy and smiling happiness is still manifest, it's a symptom, not a trait.
The personal happiness of those who are, in their personal lives, more conservative or more liberal, is hard to gauge.
People with stable marriages and lots of friends in a prosperous community of kindred souls who respect them might tend to score happier on questionnaires. And Christians among other traditionalists are enjoined - as a matter of faith - to be happy: unhappiness reveals a dissatisfaction with the world as a manifestation of God's plan.
That sounds conservative to me, as a general leaning.
But considering a specific happy event: the "happiness" of the faction that was celebrating Mission Accomplished a few years ago - and I mean whooping it up, shooting off fireworks, big smiles on TV and congratulations all around, parties and celebrations, even legislative threats toward the unpatriotically unhappy, toward the pessimistic naysayers walking around with their long faces and warnings of doom - to the extent that giddy joy and smiling happiness is still manifest, it's a symptom, not a trait.
Mad i have to say im surprised by this result.
Wonder if the poll result would be the same though if the power was the other way around in US politics (or the politics of anyone who voted)
For instance say that every state and the US goverment had bills being passed to alow gay marrage (simply as an example). Wonder would this have an effect on the result
However i do publicaly admit that you were right and i was wrong
Wonder if the poll result would be the same though if the power was the other way around in US politics (or the politics of anyone who voted)
For instance say that every state and the US goverment had bills being passed to alow gay marrage (simply as an example). Wonder would this have an effect on the result
However i do publicaly admit that you were right and i was wrong
I'll go with utopian optimism
Admittedly, it's a tough call. I went with optimism in the end because, as many of my conservative neighbors criticize, much of my outlook is rooted in a certain brand of idealism. While I have great concerns about the state of my society and the condition of my neighbors both in the United States and abroad, the human species has endured great evil in the past and has not yet succumbed.
Thus, no matter how poorly I view the mad rush toward extinction, and no matter how ridiculous I might find the proposition that a future of cutthroat humanity is something to be optimistic about, I have great faith that our species will find a way to endure the unwholesome cajoling of the conservative lie. We've made it this far. The only reason we should not survive the challenges of our current day would be that we would choose such an outcome. And I have not yet come to believe that the entire species is suicidal.
Admittedly, it's a tough call. I went with optimism in the end because, as many of my conservative neighbors criticize, much of my outlook is rooted in a certain brand of idealism. While I have great concerns about the state of my society and the condition of my neighbors both in the United States and abroad, the human species has endured great evil in the past and has not yet succumbed.
Thus, no matter how poorly I view the mad rush toward extinction, and no matter how ridiculous I might find the proposition that a future of cutthroat humanity is something to be optimistic about, I have great faith that our species will find a way to endure the unwholesome cajoling of the conservative lie. We've made it this far. The only reason we should not survive the challenges of our current day would be that we would choose such an outcome. And I have not yet come to believe that the entire species is suicidal.
This doesn't surprise me. While we disagree vehemently on most issues, I sense a certain kindred spirit in you. An idealistic faith in humanity that seems to be lacking in so many on the left.
no i assume they don't have empathy because i don't see it expressed.
Because you define it in terms of government programs. Conservatives, for instance, give much more to charity than liberals. Much more.
So who has the empathy? The one who talks the talk about caring for the poor and disadvantaged, or the one who reaches into his own pocket to help?
Last edited:
empathy is a feeling. A motivatation. I just haven't seen it in most of the conservatives i have met. They do good but empathy is not what motivates them. I define empathy as other peoples suffering effect on me. feeling shitty because others are suffering that is empathy.
How much of those goes to religious groups. take those out and liberals have they advantage.
superstring01
Moderator
Come on! You're telling me that we won't wipe ourselves out in the next two hundred years?! Really? I mean, I know it's fashionable to have bright ideas about the future, but our technology and it's abilities are fast outstripping our ability to control them. There may be sentient life in this system after us, but it won't be us.
~String
what if your a neutralist, you know not a optimist, not a pessimist (...but all lover)?
The one who throws a few dollars to the suitably submissive, while donating a grand piano to the church, is not necessarily any less empathetic than the one who refuses the panhandlers but votes for higher taxes to pay for school breakfastsmadanth said:
but they are less effective. Those high-charity states have low-scoring poor people on almost all measures of well-being.
Ican see where they would be more optimistic, though - the world is going their way, except for a few problems due to bad people.
A few years ago some researcher found that mildly depressed people in the US were more accurate estimators of a whole range of physical results - such as how much time it would take to do something, or what the profit margin would be on an exchange when it was over, or even how much things weighed that they were to pick up and move.
The connection of "left" with "pessimism" would thereby have an observable third aspect - the connection of "left" with "physically accurate".
Now the chain of cause and effect remains unknown. Supposing this researcher is correct, and madanth's suspicion of "liberals" is also correct, we still have at least three possibilities: leftiness leads to pessimism and accuracy, pessimism leads to leftiness and accuracy, accuracy leads to pessimism and leftiness.
Not to mention 7/11 and racialism or Barely Legal 3.
You see the dangers of technology, and I acknowledge the threat. But, it may also be our salvation.
Was Prometheus wrong to give us fire and start us on this road? Should we have continued to rut around in the dirt like the rest of the earth's inhabitants?
Screw that. Technology is our gift. It's what we do. We will either rise to the challenge and not only survive but spread out to the stars; or annihilate ourselves in an orgy of destruction.
Either way, it beats the alternative. It's better to burn out, then fade away...............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvnq_W0i3Bs
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
BAHAHAHAHA, tell me I just didn't walk into the sciforums comedy club? Conservatives are extremely angry people. Who're you trying to fool? Here's an example of the belligerence and anger that's engulfed the Conservative movement. Oreilly, Bortz, Hannity, Rush, Kevin James, Mike Reagan,Ann Coulter Mark Levine, Imus, Gingrich, John Gibson, Glen Beck,Michelle Malkin Tom Delay etc. I can go on for an eternity. These guys are always angry, and are known for screaming down their opponents, or at anyone who doesn't agree with them. These people are all certified nut cases. I'm not saying all conservatives are nuts, but the exalted ones who commandeer the upper echelons of the hierarchy certainly are.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
It depends on how you define destroy. Yes, the current civilization as we know it will not exist in 200 years. Here's a quote from the greatest futurist of our time.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0551.html?printable=1
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Boortz is a libertarian, Imus a democrat and glen beck is a conspiracy believer- so he is clearly not rational. Are you perhaps from another country? If you are getting your information second hand pehaps that is why so much of it is wrong. :shrug:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member