Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

CONSERVATIVES are happier than LIBERALS.

Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 6:01:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A recent study proves it. Don't believe me? Here's the proof. A Liberal rag, no less. Read it and weep, you miserable Liberals.

http://www.nytimes.com...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 6:36:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 6:28:23 PM, Praesentya wrote:
So self-reported evidence is an argument now..? Good grief.

Well, there is no real way to measure happiness other than self reporting.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 8:48:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 6:42:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
Do you have a point, other than your childish need to proclaim victory about something completely irrelevant?

Maybe ignorance is bliss?
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 9:59:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 8:48:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/17/2014 6:42:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
Do you have a point, other than your childish need to proclaim victory about something completely irrelevant?

Maybe ignorance is bliss?

So happiness is irrelevant? Get out of here!
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed. Moreover, conservatives tend to geographically isolate themselves from things they don't like which has the impact of keeping extant problems out of sight, and out of mind.

Conservatives barricade themselves in -mostly white- suburbs, without a lot of crime, mostly with people of similar socioeconomic status and send their kids to public school with other kids whose parents chose to do the same. It is my contention that that social microcosm is psychologically deleterious to kids, in that shielding them from social conflict makes them unprepared to handle real world challenges they'll meet in college and in the workplace -but that's another conversation for another day.

In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do. Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That enables (especially socially conservative Republicans) to come up with all kinds of idiotic ideas about wealth, the middle class and the like. It allows the dark side of the protestant work ethic (and larger social attitude about work in the United States) to come out, because the conditions for destitute poverty escape them. Essentially, the belief that "if you work hard you will succeed" has a contrapositive of "if you fail to succeed, it is because you are unwilling to work," so poverty then becomes something to be scorned not only on a practical level but a moral one as well. This is how Republicans "are prepared to rationalize" social inequality, and liberals know it's bullsh!t.
Tsar of DDO
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 11:47:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 6:01:49 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
A recent study proves it. Don't believe me? Here's the proof. A Liberal rag, no less. Read it and weep, you miserable Liberals.

http://www.nytimes.com...

Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 11:58:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed. Moreover, conservatives tend to geographically isolate themselves from things they don't like which has the impact of keeping extant problems out of sight, and out of mind.

Conservatives barricade themselves in -mostly white- suburbs, without a lot of crime, mostly with people of similar socioeconomic status and send their kids to public school with other kids whose parents chose to do the same. It is my contention that that social microcosm is psychologically deleterious to kids, in that shielding them from social conflict makes them unprepared to handle real world challenges they'll meet in college and in the workplace -but that's another conversation for another day.

In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do. Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That enables (especially socially conservative Republicans) to come up with all kinds of idiotic ideas about wealth, the middle class and the like. It allows the dark side of the protestant work ethic (and larger social attitude about work in the United States) to come out, because the conditions for destitute poverty escape them. Essentially, the belief that "if you work hard you will succeed" has a contrapositive of "if you fail to succeed, it is because you are unwilling to work," so poverty then becomes something to be scorned not only on a practical level but a moral one as well. This is how Republicans "are prepared to rationalize" social inequality, and liberals know it's bullsh!t.

You are so full of it. I've traveled a lot. I've been to more cities in five years than most people see in a lifetime. Homelessness is everywhere. At least everywhere I've been. I live in a rural area and we have homeless here too. Your contention that Conservatives are ignorant of the problem so don't care about it is flat out wrong. We believe that most people are homeless because of their own actions. I've met many homeless people who panhandle rather than work. I've seen several of them offered jobs and they turned them down. I've offered, several times, to buy one of them something to eat. They refused. You know why? They probably wanted cash for drugs or gambling. If someone is homeless, there are programs they can attend to end homelessness. Help is everywhere. they just have to use it.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 12:23:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 11:58:30 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed. Moreover, conservatives tend to geographically isolate themselves from things they don't like which has the impact of keeping extant problems out of sight, and out of mind.

Conservatives barricade themselves in -mostly white- suburbs, without a lot of crime, mostly with people of similar socioeconomic status and send their kids to public school with other kids whose parents chose to do the same. It is my contention that that social microcosm is psychologically deleterious to kids, in that shielding them from social conflict makes them unprepared to handle real world challenges they'll meet in college and in the workplace -but that's another conversation for another day.

In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do. Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That enables (especially socially conservative Republicans) to come up with all kinds of idiotic ideas about wealth, the middle class and the like. It allows the dark side of the protestant work ethic (and larger social attitude about work in the United States) to come out, because the conditions for destitute poverty escape them. Essentially, the belief that "if you work hard you will succeed" has a contrapositive of "if you fail to succeed, it is because you are unwilling to work," so poverty then becomes something to be scorned not only on a practical level but a moral one as well. This is how Republicans "are prepared to rationalize" social inequality, and liberals know it's bullsh!t.

You are so full of it. I've traveled a lot. I've been to more cities in five years than most people see in a lifetime. Homelessness is everywhere. At least everywhere I've been. I live in a rural area and we have homeless here too. Your contention that Conservatives are ignorant of the problem so don't care about it is flat out wrong.

I didn't say that conservatives were ignorant of homelessness's existence. I said that they're not exposed to it with any kind of regularity, which makes it less imminent to them.

We believe that most people are homeless because of their own actions.

Yes, I know. And some people are, but that doesn't mean that they deserve to be homeless. This gets to the heart of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives, nevertheless.

I've met many homeless people who panhandle rather than work.

I'm sure...

I've seen several of them offered jobs and they turned them down. I've offered, several times, to buy one of them something to eat. They refused. You know why? They probably wanted cash for drugs or gambling. If someone is homeless, there are programs they can attend to end homelessness. Help is everywhere. they just have to use it.

This is what I was talking about earlier, and it's actually amusing to me that you're so blind that what you just said confirms what I said above.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 12:43:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed. Moreover, conservatives tend to geographically isolate themselves from things they don't like which has the impact of keeping extant problems out of sight, and out of mind.

Conservatives barricade themselves in -mostly white- suburbs, without a lot of crime, mostly with people of similar socioeconomic status and send their kids to public school with other kids whose parents chose to do the same. It is my contention that that social microcosm is psychologically deleterious to kids, in that shielding them from social conflict makes them unprepared to handle real world challenges they'll meet in college and in the workplace -but that's another conversation for another day.

In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do. Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That enables (especially socially conservative Republicans) to come up with all kinds of idiotic ideas about wealth, the middle class and the like. It allows the dark side of the protestant work ethic (and larger social attitude about work in the United States) to come out, because the conditions for destitute poverty escape them. Essentially, the belief that "if you work hard you will succeed" has a contrapositive of "if you fail to succeed, it is because you are unwilling to work," so poverty then becomes something to be scorned not only on a practical level but a moral one as well. This is how Republicans "are prepared to rationalize" social inequality, and liberals know it's bullsh!t.

That's not how happiness works, YYW. A far more realistic explanation than "geographic isolation" is that societies which can be described as removed from the societal problems in cities don't have those problems. The fact that conservatives aren't around inequality means they aren't themselves impoverished.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 12:58:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed.

In order to ignore them, they cannot be part of them. Also, the kind of thinking which allows them to ignore those problems also allows them to not worry as much in general.


In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do.

Cities are more stressful than suburbs, and stress can cause unhappiness.

Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That's because suburbs are generally wealthier than cities (and wealth is correlated with happiness up to a certain point). Also, the kinds of people who move to cities tend to be more liberal to begin with. I don't think "seeing homeless people" is really a causative factor of liberalism. Homeless people tend to go where the liberals are, because they get more benefits that way.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 1:02:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 12:58:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed.

In order to ignore them, they cannot be part of them. Also, the kind of thinking which allows them to ignore those problems also allows them to not worry as much in general.


In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do.

Cities are more stressful than suburbs, and stress can cause unhappiness.


Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That's because suburbs are generally wealthier than cities (and wealth is correlated with happiness up to a certain point). Also, the kinds of people who move to cities tend to be more liberal to begin with. I don't think "seeing homeless people" is really a causative factor of liberalism. Homeless people tend to go where the liberals are, because they get more benefits that way.

I agree with most of what you've said up to this point, and I didn't say that "seeing homeless people" causes liberalism. I said that the exposure to inequality makes Liberals (who live in cities) more conscious of it than conservatives, who are shielded from it relative to Liberals.

Btw. there is vastly more wealth in cities than in suburbs. There is also more poverty.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 1:03:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 12:43:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed. Moreover, conservatives tend to geographically isolate themselves from things they don't like which has the impact of keeping extant problems out of sight, and out of mind.

Conservatives barricade themselves in -mostly white- suburbs, without a lot of crime, mostly with people of similar socioeconomic status and send their kids to public school with other kids whose parents chose to do the same. It is my contention that that social microcosm is psychologically deleterious to kids, in that shielding them from social conflict makes them unprepared to handle real world challenges they'll meet in college and in the workplace -but that's another conversation for another day.

In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do. Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That enables (especially socially conservative Republicans) to come up with all kinds of idiotic ideas about wealth, the middle class and the like. It allows the dark side of the protestant work ethic (and larger social attitude about work in the United States) to come out, because the conditions for destitute poverty escape them. Essentially, the belief that "if you work hard you will succeed" has a contrapositive of "if you fail to succeed, it is because you are unwilling to work," so poverty then becomes something to be scorned not only on a practical level but a moral one as well. This is how Republicans "are prepared to rationalize" social inequality, and liberals know it's bullsh!t.

That's not how happiness works, YYW.

I wasn't talking about happiness, generally, Dylan. I was talking about the relative differences between liberals and conservatives.
Tsar of DDO
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 1:12:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 12:23:06 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:58:30 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed. Moreover, conservatives tend to geographically isolate themselves from things they don't like which has the impact of keeping extant problems out of sight, and out of mind.

Conservatives barricade themselves in -mostly white- suburbs, without a lot of crime, mostly with people of similar socioeconomic status and send their kids to public school with other kids whose parents chose to do the same. It is my contention that that social microcosm is psychologically deleterious to kids, in that shielding them from social conflict makes them unprepared to handle real world challenges they'll meet in college and in the workplace -but that's another conversation for another day.

In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do. Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That enables (especially socially conservative Republicans) to come up with all kinds of idiotic ideas about wealth, the middle class and the like. It allows the dark side of the protestant work ethic (and larger social attitude about work in the United States) to come out, because the conditions for destitute poverty escape them. Essentially, the belief that "if you work hard you will succeed" has a contrapositive of "if you fail to succeed, it is because you are unwilling to work," so poverty then becomes something to be scorned not only on a practical level but a moral one as well. This is how Republicans "are prepared to rationalize" social inequality, and liberals know it's bullsh!t.

You are so full of it. I've traveled a lot. I've been to more cities in five years than most people see in a lifetime. Homelessness is everywhere. At least everywhere I've been. I live in a rural area and we have homeless here too. Your contention that Conservatives are ignorant of the problem so don't care about it is flat out wrong.

I didn't say that conservatives were ignorant of homelessness's existence. I said that they're not exposed to it with any kind of regularity, which makes it less imminent to them.

We believe that most people are homeless because of their own actions.

Yes, I know. And some people are, but that doesn't mean that they deserve to be homeless. This gets to the heart of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives, nevertheless.

I've met many homeless people who panhandle rather than work.

I'm sure...

I've seen several of them offered jobs and they turned them down. I've offered, several times, to buy one of them something to eat. They refused. You know why? They probably wanted cash for drugs or gambling. If someone is homeless, there are programs they can attend to end homelessness. Help is everywhere. they just have to use it.

This is what I was talking about earlier, and it's actually amusing to me that you're so blind that what you just said confirms what I said above.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I've BEEN homeless before. I know what these people are like better than you ever could. I was exposed to them on a daily bases.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 1:18:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 1:02:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/18/2014 12:58:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed.

In order to ignore them, they cannot be part of them. Also, the kind of thinking which allows them to ignore those problems also allows them to not worry as much in general.


In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do.

Cities are more stressful than suburbs, and stress can cause unhappiness.


Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That's because suburbs are generally wealthier than cities (and wealth is correlated with happiness up to a certain point). Also, the kinds of people who move to cities tend to be more liberal to begin with. I don't think "seeing homeless people" is really a causative factor of liberalism. Homeless people tend to go where the liberals are, because they get more benefits that way.

I agree with most of what you've said up to this point, and I didn't say that "seeing homeless people" causes liberalism. I said that the exposure to inequality makes Liberals (who live in cities) more conscious of it than conservatives, who are shielded from it relative to Liberals.

Um, no. Liberals everywhere favor government intervention to address inequality. It has nothing to do with living in cities.


Btw. there is vastly more wealth in cities than in suburbs. There is also more poverty.

Being extremely wealthy as opposed to upper-middle-class doesn't mean you are happier.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 1:18:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 1:03:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/18/2014 12:43:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed. Moreover, conservatives tend to geographically isolate themselves from things they don't like which has the impact of keeping extant problems out of sight, and out of mind.

Conservatives barricade themselves in -mostly white- suburbs, without a lot of crime, mostly with people of similar socioeconomic status and send their kids to public school with other kids whose parents chose to do the same. It is my contention that that social microcosm is psychologically deleterious to kids, in that shielding them from social conflict makes them unprepared to handle real world challenges they'll meet in college and in the workplace -but that's another conversation for another day.

In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do. Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That enables (especially socially conservative Republicans) to come up with all kinds of idiotic ideas about wealth, the middle class and the like. It allows the dark side of the protestant work ethic (and larger social attitude about work in the United States) to come out, because the conditions for destitute poverty escape them. Essentially, the belief that "if you work hard you will succeed" has a contrapositive of "if you fail to succeed, it is because you are unwilling to work," so poverty then becomes something to be scorned not only on a practical level but a moral one as well. This is how Republicans "are prepared to rationalize" social inequality, and liberals know it's bullsh!t.

That's not how happiness works, YYW.

I wasn't talking about happiness, generally, Dylan. I was talking about the relative differences between liberals and conservatives.

"Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 1:20:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's no mystery that conservatives tend to be happier than liberals. They are disproportionally non-poor, church-going and family-oriented. All of these are positively correlated with happiness individually. If you controlled for these factors, the difference between liberals and conservatives would probably diminish to a statically insignificant level.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 1:47:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed. Moreover, conservatives tend to geographically isolate themselves from things they don't like which has the impact of keeping extant problems out of sight, and out of mind.

Conservatives barricade themselves in -mostly white- suburbs, without a lot of crime, mostly with people of similar socioeconomic status and send their kids to public school with other kids whose parents chose to do the same. It is my contention that that social microcosm is psychologically deleterious to kids, in that shielding them from social conflict makes them unprepared to handle real world challenges they'll meet in college and in the workplace -but that's another conversation for another day.

In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do. Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That enables (especially socially conservative Republicans) to come up with all kinds of idiotic ideas about wealth, the middle class and the like. It allows the dark side of the protestant work ethic (and larger social attitude about work in the United States) to come out, because the conditions for destitute poverty escape them. Essentially, the belief that "if you work hard you will succeed" has a contrapositive of "if you fail to succeed, it is because you are unwilling to work," so poverty then becomes something to be scorned not only on a practical level but a moral one as well. This is how Republicans "are prepared to rationalize" social inequality, and liberals know it's bullsh!t.

This is why I respect you.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 1:51:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 1:18:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/18/2014 1:03:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/18/2014 12:43:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed. Moreover, conservatives tend to geographically isolate themselves from things they don't like which has the impact of keeping extant problems out of sight, and out of mind.

Conservatives barricade themselves in -mostly white- suburbs, without a lot of crime, mostly with people of similar socioeconomic status and send their kids to public school with other kids whose parents chose to do the same. It is my contention that that social microcosm is psychologically deleterious to kids, in that shielding them from social conflict makes them unprepared to handle real world challenges they'll meet in college and in the workplace -but that's another conversation for another day.

In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do. Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That enables (especially socially conservative Republicans) to come up with all kinds of idiotic ideas about wealth, the middle class and the like. It allows the dark side of the protestant work ethic (and larger social attitude about work in the United States) to come out, because the conditions for destitute poverty escape them. Essentially, the belief that "if you work hard you will succeed" has a contrapositive of "if you fail to succeed, it is because you are unwilling to work," so poverty then becomes something to be scorned not only on a practical level but a moral one as well. This is how Republicans "are prepared to rationalize" social inequality, and liberals know it's bullsh!t.

That's not how happiness works, YYW.

I wasn't talking about happiness, generally, Dylan. I was talking about the relative differences between liberals and conservatives.

"Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed."

Dylan, what did you think I said there? You're confusing necessary and sufficient factors...
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 1:54:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 1:12:23 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You have no idea what you're talking about. I've BEEN homeless before. I know what these people are like better than you ever could. I was exposed to them on a daily bases.

And this is why I love talking with conservatives, because when they are objectively and demonstrably wrong, they just say dumb things like "you don't know what you're talking about." No rebuttal. No response other than ad homs. lol

I'm what you'd probably regard as a "Liberal elite."

lol
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 1:54:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 1:47:05 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed. Moreover, conservatives tend to geographically isolate themselves from things they don't like which has the impact of keeping extant problems out of sight, and out of mind.

Conservatives barricade themselves in -mostly white- suburbs, without a lot of crime, mostly with people of similar socioeconomic status and send their kids to public school with other kids whose parents chose to do the same. It is my contention that that social microcosm is psychologically deleterious to kids, in that shielding them from social conflict makes them unprepared to handle real world challenges they'll meet in college and in the workplace -but that's another conversation for another day.

In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do. Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That enables (especially socially conservative Republicans) to come up with all kinds of idiotic ideas about wealth, the middle class and the like. It allows the dark side of the protestant work ethic (and larger social attitude about work in the United States) to come out, because the conditions for destitute poverty escape them. Essentially, the belief that "if you work hard you will succeed" has a contrapositive of "if you fail to succeed, it is because you are unwilling to work," so poverty then becomes something to be scorned not only on a practical level but a moral one as well. This is how Republicans "are prepared to rationalize" social inequality, and liberals know it's bullsh!t.

This is why I respect you.

Thanks, Pots.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 2:23:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 1:51:27 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/18/2014 1:18:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/18/2014 1:03:02 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/18/2014 12:43:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed. Moreover, conservatives tend to geographically isolate themselves from things they don't like which has the impact of keeping extant problems out of sight, and out of mind.

Conservatives barricade themselves in -mostly white- suburbs, without a lot of crime, mostly with people of similar socioeconomic status and send their kids to public school with other kids whose parents chose to do the same. It is my contention that that social microcosm is psychologically deleterious to kids, in that shielding them from social conflict makes them unprepared to handle real world challenges they'll meet in college and in the workplace -but that's another conversation for another day.

In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do. Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That enables (especially socially conservative Republicans) to come up with all kinds of idiotic ideas about wealth, the middle class and the like. It allows the dark side of the protestant work ethic (and larger social attitude about work in the United States) to come out, because the conditions for destitute poverty escape them. Essentially, the belief that "if you work hard you will succeed" has a contrapositive of "if you fail to succeed, it is because you are unwilling to work," so poverty then becomes something to be scorned not only on a practical level but a moral one as well. This is how Republicans "are prepared to rationalize" social inequality, and liberals know it's bullsh!t.

That's not how happiness works, YYW.

I wasn't talking about happiness, generally, Dylan. I was talking about the relative differences between liberals and conservatives.

"Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed."

Dylan, what did you think I said there? You're confusing necessary and sufficient factors...

You were saying the difference between liberals and conservatives with respect to happiness is attributable to their exposure/non-exposure to social problems.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 2:32:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 11:58:30 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed. Moreover, conservatives tend to geographically isolate themselves from things they don't like which has the impact of keeping extant problems out of sight, and out of mind.

Conservatives barricade themselves in -mostly white- suburbs, without a lot of crime, mostly with people of similar socioeconomic status and send their kids to public school with other kids whose parents chose to do the same. It is my contention that that social microcosm is psychologically deleterious to kids, in that shielding them from social conflict makes them unprepared to handle real world challenges they'll meet in college and in the workplace -but that's another conversation for another day.

In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do. Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That enables (especially socially conservative Republicans) to come up with all kinds of idiotic ideas about wealth, the middle class and the like. It allows the dark side of the protestant work ethic (and larger social attitude about work in the United States) to come out, because the conditions for destitute poverty escape them. Essentially, the belief that "if you work hard you will succeed" has a contrapositive of "if you fail to succeed, it is because you are unwilling to work," so poverty then becomes something to be scorned not only on a practical level but a moral one as well. This is how Republicans "are prepared to rationalize" social inequality, and liberals know it's bullsh!t.

You are so full of it. I've traveled a lot. I've been to more cities in five years than most people see in a lifetime. Homelessness is everywhere. At least everywhere I've been. I live in a rural area and we have homeless here too. Your contention that Conservatives are ignorant of the problem so don't care about it is flat out wrong. We believe that most people are homeless because of their own actions. I've met many homeless people who panhandle rather than work. I've seen several of them offered jobs and they turned them down. I've offered, several times, to buy one of them something to eat. They refused. You know why? They probably wanted cash for drugs or gambling. If someone is homeless, there are programs they can attend to end homelessness. Help is everywhere. they just have to use it.

Why can't pan handling be a job?

BTW you really just proved YYW's point. You just justified why you should feel zero compassion for a homeless person who cannot make themselves un-homeless. LOL
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 5:01:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed. Moreover, conservatives tend to geographically isolate themselves from things they don't like which has the impact of keeping extant problems out of sight, and out of mind.

Conservatives barricade themselves in -mostly white- suburbs, without a lot of crime, mostly with people of similar socioeconomic status and send their kids to public school with other kids whose parents chose to do the same. It is my contention that that social microcosm is psychologically deleterious to kids, in that shielding them from social conflict makes them unprepared to handle real world challenges they'll meet in college and in the workplace -but that's another conversation for another day.

In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do. Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That enables (especially socially conservative Republicans) to come up with all kinds of idiotic ideas about wealth, the middle class and the like. It allows the dark side of the protestant work ethic (and larger social attitude about work in the United States) to come out, because the conditions for destitute poverty escape them. Essentially, the belief that "if you work hard you will succeed" has a contrapositive of "if you fail to succeed, it is because you are unwilling to work," so poverty then becomes something to be scorned not only on a practical level but a moral one as well. This is how Republicans "are prepared to rationalize" social inequality, and liberals know it's bullsh!t.

Liberals in general are more drawn to live in big cities, I think, while Conservatives more typically live in suburbs and rural areas. Would you agree with this statement?
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 5:03:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 5:01:41 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed. Moreover, conservatives tend to geographically isolate themselves from things they don't like which has the impact of keeping extant problems out of sight, and out of mind.

Conservatives barricade themselves in -mostly white- suburbs, without a lot of crime, mostly with people of similar socioeconomic status and send their kids to public school with other kids whose parents chose to do the same. It is my contention that that social microcosm is psychologically deleterious to kids, in that shielding them from social conflict makes them unprepared to handle real world challenges they'll meet in college and in the workplace -but that's another conversation for another day.

In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do. Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That enables (especially socially conservative Republicans) to come up with all kinds of idiotic ideas about wealth, the middle class and the like. It allows the dark side of the protestant work ethic (and larger social attitude about work in the United States) to come out, because the conditions for destitute poverty escape them. Essentially, the belief that "if you work hard you will succeed" has a contrapositive of "if you fail to succeed, it is because you are unwilling to work," so poverty then becomes something to be scorned not only on a practical level but a moral one as well. This is how Republicans "are prepared to rationalize" social inequality, and liberals know it's bullsh!t.

Liberals in general are more drawn to live in big cities, I think, while Conservatives more typically live in suburbs and rural areas. Would you agree with this statement?

I think that it is the case that liberals tend to live in big cities, whereas conservatives tend to live not in cities as a general rule, but there are plenty of suburbs filled with democrats, like outside of Chicago, New York or Boston.
Tsar of DDO
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 5:06:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 5:03:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/18/2014 5:01:41 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed. Moreover, conservatives tend to geographically isolate themselves from things they don't like which has the impact of keeping extant problems out of sight, and out of mind.

Conservatives barricade themselves in -mostly white- suburbs, without a lot of crime, mostly with people of similar socioeconomic status and send their kids to public school with other kids whose parents chose to do the same. It is my contention that that social microcosm is psychologically deleterious to kids, in that shielding them from social conflict makes them unprepared to handle real world challenges they'll meet in college and in the workplace -but that's another conversation for another day.

In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do. Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That enables (especially socially conservative Republicans) to come up with all kinds of idiotic ideas about wealth, the middle class and the like. It allows the dark side of the protestant work ethic (and larger social attitude about work in the United States) to come out, because the conditions for destitute poverty escape them. Essentially, the belief that "if you work hard you will succeed" has a contrapositive of "if you fail to succeed, it is because you are unwilling to work," so poverty then becomes something to be scorned not only on a practical level but a moral one as well. This is how Republicans "are prepared to rationalize" social inequality, and liberals know it's bullsh!t.

Liberals in general are more drawn to live in big cities, I think, while Conservatives more typically live in suburbs and rural areas. Would you agree with this statement?

I think that it is the case that liberals tend to live in big cities, whereas conservatives tend to live not in cities as a general rule, but there are plenty of suburbs filled with democrats, like outside of Chicago, New York or Boston.

So basically Liberals live in areas filled with homeless people while Conservatives usually live in areas that don't have that many homeless people.
I'm going to tell you something that you'll probably laugh at and think I'm crazy, but it's true nonetheless...
There can be an appeal to being homeless.
I agree that many Conservatives take it too far, though, such as when they say that homeless people should never be given aid.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 5:38:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 11:41:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Indeed, conservatives are happier than liberals because they ignore most of the social problems that require governmental intervention to be addressed. Moreover, conservatives tend to geographically isolate themselves from things they don't like which has the impact of keeping extant problems out of sight, and out of mind.

This is nonsense. Have you ever, per chance, lived in a rural area? If you take a look at any map you'll notice rural and suburban areas make up, geographically, the vast majority of the United States. Contrary to your statement, it is liberals who isolate themselves into a single location (cities), which geographically are of marginal size, almost never thinking of 'flyover country'. You can see the consequences of this in states like Washington, Maryland, Illinois, and California, where urban liberals govern the entire state like one big city, to the detriment of rural areas, especially with regards to environmental and water laws. This is particularly bad in California where rural Californian farmers have no water during a drought because the stupid urban-centric laws place the life of a tiny fish over the livelihoods of rural Californians.

Conservatives barricade themselves in -mostly white- suburbs, without a lot of crime, mostly with people of similar socioeconomic status and send their kids to public school with other kids whose parents chose to do the same. It is my contention that that social microcosm is psychologically deleterious to kids, in that shielding them from social conflict makes them unprepared to handle real world challenges they'll meet in college and in the workplace -but that's another conversation for another day.

So it's not the fault of liberals for turning cities into crime-ridden nanny states, it is the fault of conservatives for not wanting to live in them? Here's an idea - stop ruining cities and maybe we'll be more interested in living in one. It's not our fault we don't want to live in Chicago, Oakland, Baltimore or Detroit.

In that conservatives are either out of the city or out in the country, they don't see inequality in the way that people live in cities do. Conservatives never see homeless people sitting in front of Saks Fifth Avenue, hungry on the sidewalk, for example. That just doesn't exist in the suburbs -but it's in every major city in the country. That's why conservatives can intellectually and emotionally "write off" inequality, because it's not close to them, it doesn't touch them so it's not real to them.

That is utter nonsense. Have you ever been to a rural area? I live in a small city (40,000 people) and hardly a day goes by without seeing homeless people begging for food on the road. The 'bad side of town' isn't nearly as bad as inner cities, but you can tell when you've entered it by the windows being barred. The Salvation Army store is constantly patroned by the homeless and you can tell just by passing it. The furniture industry that used to support my community is crumbling and many people are out of work. But no, there's no suffering outside of cities and us non-urban conservatives are shielded from the cities.

That enables (especially socially conservative Republicans) to come up with all kinds of idiotic ideas about wealth, the middle class and the like. It allows the dark side of the protestant work ethic (and larger social attitude about work in the United States) to come out, because the conditions for destitute poverty escape them. Essentially, the belief that "if you work hard you will succeed" has a contrapositive of "if you fail to succeed, it is because you are unwilling to work," so poverty then becomes something to be scorned not only on a practical level but a moral one as well. This is how Republicans "are prepared to rationalize" social inequality, and liberals know it's bullsh!t.

Once again, go to a rural area. You know who the most conservative people are? Poor white rural farmers. Your whole theory falls apart right there.