Birth Control Question

[homersapien 12,215]

Haidt found that in general, the moral mind of liberals rests on two of the five bases: Harm and Fairness. The moral mind of conservatives rests on these two bases, but also the other three: Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. Because of this, Haidt says, liberals have a much harder time understanding conservatives than vice versa.

Presumably you've read his book?

Not being able to "understand conservatives" is a whole different thing that showing empathy as a general trait.

Now it's possible I got it wrong. But since I own a copy, I will go back and check.

[homersapien 12,215]

One other point that I find really interesting and important about Haidt’s work is his findings on the ability of different groups to empathize across these ideological divides. So in his book (p. 287) Haidt reports on the following experiment: after determining whether someone is liberal or conservative, he then has each person answer the standard battery of questions as if he were the opposite ideology. So, he would ask a liberal to answer the questions as if he were a “typical conservative” and vice-versa. What he finds is quite striking: “The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as ‘very liberal.’ The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.” In other words, moderates and conservatives can understand the liberal worldview and liberals are unable to relate to the conservative worldview, especially when it comes to questions of care and fairness.

In short, Haidt’s research suggests that many liberals really do believe that conservatives are heartless bastards–or as a friend of mine once remarked, “Conservatives think that liberals are good people with bad ideas, whereas liberals think conservatives are bad people”–and very liberal people think that especially strongly. Haidt suggests that there is some truth to this.

If it is the case that conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives, why is that? Haidt’s hypothesis is that it is because conservative values are more overlapping than liberals–conservatives have a “thicker” moral worldview that includes all five values, whereas liberals have a “thinner” view that rests on only two variables. Thus, the liberal moral values are constituent part of the liberal views, but not vice-versa. So conservatives can process and affirm liberal moral views and liberals literally cannot understand how someone could be both moral and conservative–the moral values that might be animating a conservative (say, tradition or loyalty) are essentially seen by liberals as not being worth of moral weight. So conservatives who place weight on those values are literally seen as “immoral.”

Likewise, I don't think the highlighted section refutes what I am saying, which, as a general statement, represents my recollection of his points.

But like I said, I will go back and check it. I am delighted to debate this book as I thought enough of it to buy a copy after checking it out from the library.

FWIW, A great "companion" book is "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Kahneman, which I liked even more.

Back later.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Yes, my top principle is that when rights that don't exist in the Constitution compete with ones that do, the ones that don't lose.

The President overreached. He had the ability to completely avoid this conflict, but lacked the concern for those it affected. He's a textbook example of what Haidt pointed out about certain liberals that find themselves unable to see things from any point of view other than their own. He decided that he didn't really need to worry about people's religious beliefs. The non-existent right to facilitate the sex life one wants was more important that that trivial stuff...which is why we also have Catholic charities like the Little Sisters of the Poor and non-profits like EWTN having to fight this order off.

I agree across the board with your points here and all of this is a fascinating debate that, for me, boils down to a simple rhetorical question after establishing one obvious fact. That fact is, pregnancy is not an illness. Thus, why does the financial responsibility fall on the employer if one of their employees chooses to abort a pregnancy? Can they abort it? Of course, they can but is it their employer's responsibility to pay for it? I can't imagine a scenario under which it should be especially when, in this specific case, HL owners believe that life begins at conception.

All the hair splitting about legal entities, while fascinating, ultimately misses the point, IMO. The free market will work this out. If women feel it is their right to have abortion on demand paid for by their employer they can find one who agrees with that and refuse to work for those who don't. I understand this may be pushing the envelope with this interpretation but abortifacia drugs abort early stag pregnancies. That's why they're made and that is what they do.

[TitanTiger 21,219]

Hee.

[homersapien 12,215]

Haidt found that in general, the moral mind of liberals rests on two of the five bases: Harm and Fairness. The moral mind of conservatives rests on these two bases, but also the other three: Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. Because of this, Haidt says, liberals have a much harder time understanding conservatives than vice versa.

Presumably you've read his book?

Not being able to "understand conservatives" is a whole different thing that showing empathy as a general trait.

Now it's possible I got it wrong. But since I own a copy, I will go back and check.

Regarding liberals capacity for empathy

Comparing the moral matrices of Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives, Haidt says the following regarding the "Liberal Moral Matrix":

"The left builds its moral matrix on three of the six foundations, but it rests most firmly and consistently on the "Care" foundation" (my emphasis). This is shown graphically on p. 297.

He says” "....For American Liberals since 1960s, I believe that the most sacred value is caring for victims of oppression. Anyone who blames such victims for their own problems or displays or merely excuses prejudice against sacralized victim groups can expect a vehement tribal response."

He goes on to say: "Our findings at YourMorals.org match up with philosophical and popular definitions of liberalism that emphasize care for the vulnerable, opposition to hierarchy and oppression, and an intense in changing laws, traditions, and institutions to solve social problems.”

Considering the emphasis placed on this one foundation (out of six) one cannot possibly conclude that “liberals lack empathy” in any general way.

There are surprisingly few direct references to empathy in the book but here is one that is somewhat relevant on p. 49:

This is in regards to the following quote by Henry Ford: “If there is any one secret of success it lies in the ability to get the other person’s point of view and see things from their angle as well as your own”:

“It’s such an obvious point, yet few of us apply it in moral and political arguments because our righteous minds so readily shift into combat mode. The rider and the elephant work together smoothly to fend off attacks and lob rhetorical grenades of our own. The performance may impress our friends and show allies that we are committed members of the team, but no matter how good our logic, it’s not going to change the minds of our opponents if they are in combat mode too. If you really want to change someone’s mind on a moral or political matter, you’ll need to see things from that person’s angle as well as your own. And if you do truly see it he other person’s way – deeply and intuitively – you might even find your own mind opening in response. Empathy is an antidote to righteousness, although it’s very difficult to empathize across a moral divide.

(Sound familiar? )

Thanks for the excuse to re-visit Haidt. I have posted recommendations for this book (along with “Thinking Fast and Slow”) several times on this forum. And as I pointed out in my first such post, Haidt has more positive things to say about conservatives than he does liberals.

But the real value of the book is to get you to think more objectively and to at least understand - if not empathize - with the other side.

[TitanTiger 21,219]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

[homersapien 12,215]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

I think your Righteous Mind is showing.

[TitanTiger 21,219]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

I think your Righteous Mind is showing.

Haidt seems to agree with me. I considered that it was just my own biases before, but now I have objective proof.

[TitanTiger 21,219]

The Future Of Christians In Post-Christian America

Posted By Rod Dreher On July 4, 2014 @ 1:15 pm In | No Comments

Writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Peter Conn says that religious colleges ought not to receive accreditation ^[1]:

Providing accreditation to colleges like Wheaton makes a mockery of whatever academic and intellectual standards the process of accreditation is supposed to uphold. If accrediting agencies are playing by the rules in this continuing fiasco, then the rules have to be changed—or interpreted more aggressively, so that “respect” for “belief systems” does not entail approving the subversion of our core academic mission by this or that species of dogma.

Let me be clear. I have no particular objection to like-minded adherents of one or another religion banding together, calling their association a college, and charging students for the privilege of having their religious beliefs affirmed. However, I have a profound objection to legitimizing such an association through accreditation, and thereby conceding that the integrity of scholarship and teaching is merely negotiable. I also object to the expenditure of taxpayer dollars in support of religious ideology, in particular when that ideology has set itself in opposition to the findings of modern science.

In other words, religious colleges ought to be driven out of business, and out of public life, because God. Alan Jacobs eats Peter Conn for lunch: ^[2]

Conn is, if possible, even farther off-base when he writes of “the manifest disconnect between the bedrock principle of academic freedom and the governing regulations that corrupt academic freedom at Wheaton.” I taught at Wheaton for twenty-nine years, and when people asked me why I stayed there for so long my answer was always the same: I was there for the academic freedom. My interests were in the intersection of theology, religious practice, and literature — a very rich field, but one that in most secular universities I would have been strongly discouraged from pursuing except in a corrosively skeptical way. Certainly in such an environment I would never have dared to write a book on

the theology of reading

^[3]

— and yet what I learned in writing that book has been foundational for the rest of my career.

Conn — in keeping with the simplistic dichotomies that he evidently prefers — is perhaps incapable of understanding that academic freedom is a concept relative to the beliefs of the academics involved. I have a sneaking suspicion that he is even naïve enough to believe that the University of Pennsylvania, where he teaches, is, unlike Wheaton, a value-neutral institution. But as Stanley Fish

pointed out years ago

^[4]

, “What, after all, is the difference between a sectarian school which disallows challenges to the divinity of Christ and a so-called nonideological school which disallows discussion of the same question? In both contexts something goes without saying and something else cannot be said (Christ is not God or he is). There is of course a difference, not however between a closed environment and an open one but between environments that are differently closed.” Wheaton is differently closed than Penn; and for the people who teach there and study there, that difference is typically liberating rather than confining. It certainly was for me.

Read Alan’s entire response here. ^[2]

The sheer spite of Conn’s essay is striking, but we see a lot more of that kind of thing these days. On this Fourth of July, I find myself thinking about the rage — there is no other word for it — with which many liberals responded to the Hobby Lobby decision, and it makes me despair for the future of an America that came into being in large part because of religious liberty. Think about it: the Left has definitively won the culture war, and they’ve even achieved a decades-long dream: universal health care. And yet, as the Left piles up victory after victory, they have not become more tolerant of dissent, but quite the opposite. This week’s reaction from the Left has been in the spirit of the infamous quote attributed to Diderot: “Let us strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest.”

In 1996, First Things sponsored a hugely controversial symposium called “The End of Democracy? The Judicial Usurpation of Politics.” ^[5] The magazine began its essay collection like this:

Articles on “judicial arrogance” and the “judicial usurpation of power” are not new. The following symposium addresses those questions, often in fresh ways, but also moves beyond them. The symposium is, in part, an extension of the argument set forth in our May 1996 editorial, “The Ninth Circuit’s Fatal Overreach.” The Federal District Court’s decision favoring doctor-assisted suicide, we said, could be fatal not only to many people who are old, sick, or disabled, but also to popular support for our present system of government.

This symposium addresses many similarly troubling judicial actions that add up to an entrenched pattern of government by judges that is nothing less than the usurpation of politics. The question here explored, in full awareness of its far-reaching consequences, is

whether we have reached or are reaching the point where conscientious citizens can no longer give moral assent to the existing regime.

[Emphasis mine -- RD]

Americans are not accustomed to speaking of a regime. Regimes are what other nations have. The American tradition abhors the notion of the rulers and the ruled. We do not live

under

a government, never mind under a regime; we

are

the government. The traditions of democratic self-governance are powerful in our civics textbooks and in popular consciousness. This symposium asks whether we may be deceiving ourselves and, if we are, what are the implications of that self-deception. By the word “regime” we mean the actual, existing system of government. The question that is the title of this symposium is in no way hyperbolic. The subject before us is the end of democracy.

That Neuhaus et al. even posed the question was massively controversial, even among his allies on the Right, who thought it offensive, and maybe even dangerous, to consider the possibility of withdrawing support for the American system of government. In one of a series of responses ^[6] the magazine published, Midge Decter strongly rebuked Fr. Neuhaus for indulging in “careless radicalism.” John Leo urged calm:

But if the real revolution in the courts is still hidden from the people, this means that it is surely too early to say that apocalyptic action may be looming as our only option. The right-to-die/euthanasia issue is not settled. The euthanasia option disturbs a great many doctors and ordinary members of our elites. Legal marriage for homosexuals is vastly unpopular too, and this case can be made through the usual channels.

Our job is still to change the culture, not to turn our back on it or to take up arms. This will involve efforts to influence the law schools, to get better and more impartial reporting, and to make a political issue out of all judicial nominations and confirmation hearings. No dramatic last-straw activities, please. Let’s just keep working for change.

What a difference the last 18 years have made. Social and theological conservatives have lost the culture. In his “End of Democracy?” essay, the legal scholar Hadley Arkes anticipated what was to come:

In sum, the Court has fashioned, in

Romer v. Evans

, a powerful new instrument for blocking from the academy and the professions people who are “overly serious” about their religion—which is to say, people who take seriously the traditional moral teachings of Christianity and Judaism.

Through a series of small steps there is produced, over time, a dramatic change. And now we find ourselves at the threshold of a situation in which a serious Catholic, in a law firm, can be seen as a source of liability, and may need to be quarantined. But the oddity is produced by the same trend of affairs that stamps the Christian Coalition, or the religious in politics, as aggressors. The question goes strangely unasked as to what it was that “politicized” these groups in the first place and brought them into politics. During the controversy over gay marriage, the surveys showed about 70 percent of the public opposed to that novelty. But the same surveys would reveal portions of the public, comparably large, recoiling from the very people who are inclined to force a public discussion of the issue. There may be atavistic moral reflexes, drawn from a Christian past, but they seem readily matched these days by the reflexes of a newer sensibility that is wary of anyone who seems “judgmental.” Gay marriage may seem wrong, but in the new scale of things there seems something harsh or tacky about the people who would argue about the matter in public. And so the political matrix: The judges advance the interests of gay rights at every turn, and those who resist them are labeled as the fanatics.

With the same dynamic, the “Christian Right” is tagged with the responsibility for unsettling our national politics by injecting the issues of abortion and school prayer. A former adviser to George Bush asks, earnestly, “Can’t we just agree to get this issue (of abortion) out of national politics?” And he was evidently taken aback when I said, “Yes, we might make that deal—if by the ‘national’ government you also mean the courts.” For what was it, after all, that made abortion into a national issue? It was nothing other than the move of the federal courts to create a new “constitutional” right to abortion, and, in the name of that right, to sweep away all of the laws in the separate states that treated abortion as wrong. The federal courts have shifted the power to themselves as branches of the federal government, and politicized the issue at a new level of significance. Yet the people who would resist them are the ones who are condemned for bringing these divisive issues into our politics.

But this sense of the matter has taken hold precisely because the media and the public have absorbed the understanding put forth by the courts of the rights and wrongs of these matters. If there is something retrograde, something suspect, about making “discriminations” between forms of “sexuality,” then serious Christians and Jews instantly qualify as bigots. And the laws that forbid all manner of discrimination seem to emanate from a disinterested public “ethic,” suitably cleansed of any sectarian shading. The real question for us then is, How did we arrive at the state of affairs in which this sense of the world has been absorbed by a vast public in this country, which persists nevertheless in describing itself mainly as Christian and overwhelmingly as “religious”? On the question of euthanasia, the judges have quickly moved from the implausible to the unthinkable, inventing new rationales for ending the lives of people who were quite plainly alive and not dying at a decorous speed. On this matter, as on gay rights, there should have been more than enough to set off alarms for people whose sensitivities had been shaped by their religious traditions.

We find ourselves asking, then, in a blend of wonderment and outrage: What would it take in this country—what would have to happen?—before serious Christians and Jews would recognize, at once, that a critical line has been crossed? It is one thing to say, as the courts already have, that the moral precepts of Christianity and Judaism may not supply the premises of the law in a secular state. It is quite another to say that people who take those precepts seriously may be enduring targets of litigation and legal sanction if they have the temerity to voice those precepts as their own and make them the ground of their acts even in their private settings.

Perhaps Rousseau, with an edge of madness, had it right: that all of this simply came along with the ethic of modernity, as it was spread through the diffusion of the sciences and the arts. “We have all become doctors, and we have ceased being Christians.” Whatever the cause, it should be plain now that something in the religious sensibility has been deadened. My friend Russell Hittinger argues, with increasing persuasiveness, that the courts are making the political regime unlivable for serious Christians and Jews. To sound that alarm is to offer the call to political alertness. But the alarm cannot register, it cannot be felt, among people who have not been affected yet by the sense, as Christians and Jews, that there is anything taking place that is especially worth noticing.

It is not news that we have had a quiet revolution in this country on matters of sex and sexuality, and, as I wrote last year, ^[7] that the philosophical and legal stakes in the same-sex marriage debate could hardly have been bigger. Many Christians and Jews never did get the sense that there was anything taking place that was especially worth noticing, and they may not get that now. In fact, I don’t think that they (we) do. But you see in eruptions from the Left like this week’s the skull beneath the skin, and how ferocious the hatred of religious and social conservatives is.

Twenty years ago, a journal like First Things could plausibly claim that judges were usurping politics and damaging democracy, but now, the public has pretty much caught up with them. If First Things were to revisit the question now, it would have to ask how traditional Christians and Jews and other religious believers who haven’t sold out to novus ordo seclorum should live in a country that increasingly sees us as enemies of the people. Last year, in (yes) First Things, Peter Leithart pondered this ^[8] in the wake of the Windsor decision overturning DOMA:

Justice Alito was exactly right when he wrote in dissent that

Windsor

was a decision between two alternative notions of marriage – one a traditional, conjugal definition and the other a consensual, romantic, emotional definition. The latter is, in the Court’s opinion, the Constitutionally-approved definition. Justice Scalia is correct too that the very same reasoning is set up to strike down State statutes and Constitutional provisions defining marriage in traditional terms. Challenges are already coming from several of the thirtysomething states that currently do not recognize same-sex unions as marriages. We know what this Court will decide when those cases get to them.

Scalia was right, as we have seen. There should be no doubt as to how the Supreme Court majority will rule when given the opportunity. The only question is whether or not Justice Kennedy will insist on a strong protection for religious dissenters. More Leithart:

President Obama quickly reassured us that religious liberty will not be infringed. And he’s technically right. Nearly every state that has passed same-sex marriage legislation has made exceptions claiming that no pastor will be required to perform same-sex marriages. But as Robert George has pointed out, the protections are thin indeed. Tax exemption will be challenged, and so will accreditation for Christian colleges and schools that hold to traditional views of marriage. Once opposition to same-sex marriage is judged discriminatory, no institution that opposes it will be unaffected. If you want to see what the future looks like, consider what Paula Deen has been through the past few weeks.

All this means that

Windsor

presents American Christians with a call to martyrdom. In Greek,

martyria

means “witness,” specifically witness in a court. At the very least, the decision challenges American Christians to continue to teach Christian sexual ethics without compromise or apology. But Windsor presents a call to martyrdom in a more specific sense. There will be a cost for speaking the truth, a cost in reputation, opportunity, and funds if not in freedoms. Scalia’s reference to the pagan Roman claim that Christians are “enemies of mankind” was probably not fortuitous.

(Here is that quote from Scalia’s dissent in the Windsor case:

In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it

hostes humani generis

^[9]

, enemies of the human race.)

Back to Leithart:

Many churches have already capitulated to the

Zeitgeist

, and many others will. Some Christians and some churches won’t be up to the challenge. For those who heed Paul’s admonition not to be conformed to the pattern of this world, things are going to get sticky. But we are servants of God. He opens our ears to hear, and he gives us tongues to speak truth. If that means we are insulted and marginalized, if it means we yield our back to the smiters and our face to those who spit on us, so be it.

Note well that Leithart is not talking about violent resistance, but advocating bearing the contempt of the mob with courage and grace. More:

This will force a major adjustment in conservative Christian stance toward America. We’ve fooled ourselves for decades into believing that Christian America was derailed recently and by a small elite. It’s tough medicine to realize that principles inimical to traditional Christian morals are now deeply embedded in our laws, institutions and culture. The only America that actually exists is one in which “marriage” includes same-sex couples and women have a Constitutional right to kill their babies. To be faithful, Christian witness must be witness

against

America.

That is a radical statement. Is it careless? I might have thought so once. Now, I feel compelled to stand with Cardinal George, who in 2012 said ^[10]:

Communism imposed a total way of life based upon the belief that God does not exist. Secularism is communism’s better-scrubbed bedfellow. A small irony of history cropped up at the United Nations a few weeks ago when Russia joined the majority of other nations to defeat the United States and the western European nations that wanted to declare that killing the unborn should be a universal human right. Who is on the wrong side of history now?

The present political campaign has brought to the surface of our public life the anti-religious sentiment, much of it explicitly anti-Catholic, that has been growing in this country for several decades. The secularizing of our culture is a much larger issue than political causes or the outcome of the current electoral campaign, important though that is.

Speaking a few years ago to a group of priests, entirely outside of the current political debate, I was trying to express in overly dramatic fashion what the complete secularization of our society could bring. I was responding to a question and I never wrote down what I said, but the words were captured on somebody’s smart phone and have now gone viral on Wikipedia and elsewhere in the electronic communications world. I am (correctly) quoted as saying that I expected to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. What is omitted from the reports is a final phrase I added about the bishop who follows a possibly martyred bishop: “His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.” What I said is not “prophetic” but a way to force people to think outside of the usual categories that limit and sometimes poison both private and public discourse.

American Christians faithful to Scripture and tradition had better start thinking outside of the usual categories, and preparing themselves for what’s to come, especially given the technological capabilities of the national security state. Now is the time for realism. A bleak thought for the Fourth of July, but there it is.

http://www.theameric...istian-america/

It seems the one constant in American politics is that no matter who gets the upper hand, they always seem to overreach. It seems (I hope) that it's the social liberal's turn to learn this lesson.

[TexasTiger 14,226]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

Wow. You have an very biased perspective as I am again reminded. There are extremely close-minded, judgmental folks on both sides of the spectrum that are equally bad IMO. Those on the far left are perhaps more ironic since they are more apt to tout "tolerance." Most indicators, including polls, media ratings and this forum suggests the group on the extreme right is larger in number, however.

[TitanTiger 21,219]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

Wow. You have an very biased perspective as I am again reminded. There are extremely close-minded, judgmental folks on both sides of the spectrum that are equally bad IMO. Those on the far left are perhaps more ironic since they are more apt to tout "tolerance." Most indicators, including polls, media ratings and this forum suggests the group on the extreme right is larger in number, however.

Of course there are. I just think that ironically, the liberal camp has a higher percentage of them. Haidt's experiment appears to back that view.

[TexasTiger 14,226]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

Wow. You have an very biased perspective as I am again reminded. There are extremely close-minded, judgmental folks on both sides of the spectrum that are equally bad IMO. Those on the far left are perhaps more ironic since they are more apt to tout "tolerance." Most indicators, including polls, media ratings and this forum suggests the group on the extreme right is larger in number, however.

Of course there are. I just think that ironically, the liberal camp has a higher percentage of them. Haidt's experiment appears to back that view.

Your reading of Haidt is different from what I've seen. Please link to the cite you believe supports your conclusion.

[TexasTiger 14,226]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

Wow. You have an very biased perspective as I am again reminded. There are extremely close-minded, judgmental folks on both sides of the spectrum that are equally bad IMO. Those on the far left are perhaps more ironic since they are more apt to tout "tolerance." Most indicators, including polls, media ratings and this forum suggests the group on the extreme right is larger in number, however.

Of course there are. I just think that ironically, the liberal camp has a higher percentage of them. Haidt's experiment appears to back that view.

Your reading of Haidt is different from what I've seen. Please link to the cite you believe supports your conclusion.

I think one thing your conclusion misses is that many conservatives see any one to their left as liberal. Haid studies self-described liberals which is a comparatively small group. So while conservatives may better identify liberal's rationales for their beliefs than liberals can for conservatives, it doesn't prevent them from attributing that rationale to some greater moral failing and they tend to attribute the same views to centrists, whom they often fail to recognize as existing.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Yes, my top principle is that when rights that don't exist in the Constitution compete with ones that do, the ones that don't lose.

The President overreached. He had the ability to completely avoid this conflict, but lacked the concern for those it affected. He's a textbook example of what Haidt pointed out about certain liberals that find themselves unable to see things from any point of view other than their own. He decided that he didn't really need to worry about people's religious beliefs. The non-existent right to facilitate the sex life one wants was more important that that trivial stuff...which is why we also have Catholic charities like the Little Sisters of the Poor and non-profits like EWTN having to fight this order off.

I agree across the board with your points here and all of this is a fascinating debate that, for me, boils down to a simple rhetorical question after establishing one obvious fact. That fact is, pregnancy is not an illness. Thus, why does the financial responsibility fall on the employer if one of their employees chooses to abort a pregnancy? Can they abort it? Of course, they can but is it their employer's responsibility to pay for it? I can't imagine a scenario under which it should be especially when, in this specific case, HL owners believe that life begins at conception.

All the hair splitting about legal entities, while fascinating, ultimately misses the point, IMO. The free market will work this out. If women feel it is their right to have abortion on demand paid for by their employer they can find one who agrees with that and refuse to work for those who don't. I understand this may be pushing the envelope with this interpretation but abortifacia drugs abort early stag pregnancies. That's why they're made and that is what they do.

While I understand you are mainly referring to things such as the morning after pill, or those that interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg, the statement isn't entirely true about pregnancy.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying: "Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/

Of course you can argue if you want to call that "illness" or not I suppose, but the issue is that this is where politicians are trying to go with the Hobby Lobby rulings:

The Life at Conception Act, sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul, would give fertilized eggs equal protection under the 14th Amendment and does not provide any exemptions for rape, incest or health of the mother. Pro-choice advocates logically assume this could not only make all forms of abortion illegal, but could ban any form of birth control if it is deemed to make the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus more difficult.

http://www.leoweekly.com/news/fetal-lobby-their-hobby

And when we are talking about birth control you also have to remember that there are those that due to religion (Catholics for example) believe anything that interferes with fertilization is a sin, that would include condoms and withdraw method, that the act of sex should be open to life.

As I stated elsewhere, my preference would be that abortion in healthy incidents was avoided and that the child would immediately be given up for adoption.

[homersapien 12,215]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

I think your Righteous Mind is showing.

Haidt seems to agree with me. I considered that it was just my own biases before, but now I have objective proof.

So you think Haidt supports the highlighted statement?

they (liberals) tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views.

You disagreed with my generalization that liberals (if anything) show more empathy than conservatives. I presented my case for that while admitting it is indirect since it wasn't as explicit as my memory suggested. (surprise surprise )

Perhaps you need to clarify your point, but I don't see any support for saying one side is generally more empathetic - or receptive - than the other. It seems obvious to me that either side can show a lack of empathy while trying to relate to the other side. That works both ways. This forum is proof of that.

Speaking of which, I don't see much direct "villainization" of the right by the left on this forum. Certainly no more than vice-versa. I do see a tendency to assume the role of victim, which I think reflects a propensity to infer things. (I realize the irony of saying that, as it represents a microcosm of the subject. )

[homersapien 12,215]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

Wow. You have an very biased perspective as I am again reminded. There are extremely close-minded, judgmental folks on both sides of the spectrum that are equally bad IMO. Those on the far left are perhaps more ironic since they are more apt to tout "tolerance." Most indicators, including polls, media ratings and this forum suggests the group on the extreme right is larger in number, however.

Of course there are. I just think that ironically, the liberal camp has a higher percentage of them. Haidt's experiment appears to back that view.

Not trying to be picky, but have you actually read the book?

[TitanTiger 21,219]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

I think your Righteous Mind is showing.

Haidt seems to agree with me. I considered that it was just my own biases before, but now I have objective proof.

So you think Haidt supports the highlighted statement?

they (liberals) tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views.

You disagreed with my generalization that liberals (if anything) show more empathy than conservatives. I presented my case for that while admitting it is indirect since it wasn't as explicit as my memory suggested. (surprise surprise )

Perhaps you need to clarify your point, but I don't see any support for saying one side is generally more empathetic - or receptive - than the other. It seems obvious to me that either side can show a lack of empathy while trying to relate to the other side. That works both ways. This forum is proof of that.

Speaking of which, I don't see much direct "villainization" of the right by the left on this forum. Certainly no more than vice-versa. I do see a tendency to assume the role of victim, which I think reflects a propensity to infer things. (I realize the irony of saying that, as it represents a microcosm of the subject. )

I think part of empathy is not just that you care when another is in trouble, difficulty, or hurting. Part of it is being able to see things from another's point of view. I think Haidt's hypothesis explains it well:

Haidt’s hypothesis is that it is because conservative values are more overlapping than liberals–conservatives have a “thicker” moral worldview that includes all five values, whereas liberals have a “thinner” view that rests on only two variables. Thus, the liberal moral values are constituent part of the liberal views, but not vice-versa. So conservatives can process and affirm liberal moral views and liberals literally cannot understand how someone could be both moral and conservative–the moral values that might be animating a conservative (say, tradition or loyalty) are essentially seen by liberals as not being worth of moral weight. So conservatives who place weight on those values are literally seen as “immoral.”

I will also say, the quality of left leaning posters here overall is not indicative of the overall left leaning populace. You guys are more rational and reasonable. I don't know if it's that your Auburn affiliation screens out the weirdos or just that you're in such a distinct minority it causes you to argue differently than you'd be in a place that was more "your turf." I certainly think the converse is true...the overwhelming majority of conservatives here brings out the worst in some of them.

And no, I haven't read the book. That article was the first I'd heard of it.

[cooltigger21 0]

When I speak of the left or lliberals, I speak of those leading the charge. I am referring to the people in government, specifically the federal elected officials and the people that work for them or appointed by them as well as the msm. They have an agenda for this country that I completely disagree with. When someone says they want to fundamentally transform America, that raises a huge red flag. It tells me they think America is flawed at it's core. When they say our constitution is a charter of negative rights, that is another red flag. When they speak in admiration of how things operate in France and even in China that just adds more to it. When every solution to any problem, real or imagined involves empowering the federal government and individuals losing their freedom I cannot compromise with that. I want to defeat that.

[TexasTiger 14,226]

I don't think liberals completely lack empathy, I just think many of them are highly selective with whom they are willing to even try to empathize. Once they've made up in their minds what the accepted and unaccepted views are, they tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views. And they do this far more than conservatives do. I don't know if it's because so many conservatives are also evangelical Christians and therefore they can remember how they used to think and be before they came to Christ or what. But it does appear to be a real difference in the camps.

I think your Righteous Mind is showing. ;)/> ;D/>

Haidt seems to agree with me. I considered that it was just my own biases before, but now I have objective proof. ;)/>

So you think Haidt supports the highlighted statement?

they (liberals) tend to attribute nothing but malice and ill will (or worse) to anyone that deviates from those views.

You disagreed with my generalization that liberals (if anything) show more empathy than conservatives. I presented my case for that while admitting it is indirect since it wasn't as explicit as my memory suggested. (surprise surprise :)/> )

Perhaps you need to clarify your point, but I don't see any support for saying one side is generally more empathetic - or receptive - than the other. It seems obvious to me that either side can show a lack of empathy while trying to relate to the other side. That works both ways. This forum is proof of that.

Speaking of which, I don't see much direct "villainization" of the right by the left on this forum. Certainly no more than vice-versa. I do see a tendency to assume the role of victim, which I think reflects a propensity to infer things. (I realize the irony of saying that, as it represents a microcosm of the subject. :)/> )

I think part of empathy is not just that you care when another is in trouble, difficulty, or hurting. Part of it is being able to see things from another's point of view. I think Haidt's hypothesis explains it well:

Haidt’s hypothesis is that it is because conservative values are more overlapping than liberals–conservatives have a “thicker” moral worldview that includes all five values, whereas liberals have a “thinner” view that rests on only two variables. Thus, the liberal moral values are constituent part of the liberal views, but not vice-versa. So conservatives can process and affirm liberal moral views and liberals literally cannot understand how someone could be both moral and conservative–the moral values that might be animating a conservative (say, tradition or loyalty) are essentially seen by liberals as not being worth of moral weight. So conservatives who place weight on those values are literally seen as “immoral.”

I will also say, the quality of left leaning posters here overall is not indicative of the overall left leaning populace. You guys are more rational and reasonable.

Perhaps it's your perception of those to the left of you that is skewed?

I disagree with the far-right views that dominate the modern Republican Party and get cast as ultra-liberal here. I don't identify with the far left. More folks identify as moderate:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166787/liberal-self-identification-edges-new-high-2013.aspx

[telling tiger 156]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/07/03/hobby-lobby-fallout-catholic-soy-milk-mogul-wont-cover-drugs-that-prevent-procreation/

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Thank you Hobby Lobby for taking on the top guns and WINNING your case. Seeing the liberals squirm and whine is icing on the cake.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=proud+to+be+an+american+song&FORM=VIRE5#view=detail&mid=D6F79B17560126D12C5BD6F79B17560126D12C5B

[TexasTiger 14,226]

Thank you Hobby Lobby for taking on the top guns and WINNING your case. Seeing the liberals squirm and whine is icing on the cake.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=proud+to+be+an+american+song&FORM=VIRE5#view=detail&mid=D6F79B17560126D12C5BD6F79B17560126D12C5B

Here you go Titan-- just one more example of a conservative who derives no greater pleasure than sensing libruls are unhappy-- what those on the Right refer to as "superior empathy."

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Thank you Hobby Lobby for taking on the top guns and WINNING your case. Seeing the liberals squirm and whine is icing on the cake.

http://www.bing.com/...B17560126D12C5B

You know, I'm going to say some things here that is gonna hit me with a lot hate and be very unpopular. The way our own military acts, since you showed them as a triumph to keeping women from birth control as part of the ACA, are a perfect example of why birth control for women ,regardless of how it works, should be made available and not withheld.

I went to high school for a bit by Ft Sill. Worst beating I ever took in my life was from trying to pull one of my female classmates out of a car where four American soldiers were trying to have their way with her. Fortunately their beating me distracted them long enough and drew enough attention that it forced them to bail.

Officers, 99% of time were cool. Enlisted, especially and primarily those there for boot camp, well they believed that because they were US soldiers and defending freedom that they were entitled to sex from women. My own sister from the time she was in junior high.. yes as a 7th and 8th grader....had to name drop officers that were Majors and up, that were fathers of her friends or friends of our family, to get soldiers to back off due to their aggressiveness (wouldn't leave alone and inappropriate/unwelcome touching). She had 100% permission to use their names in this manner cause they were well aware of the things that went on. That group represented a legitimate sexual and physical threat to girls 14 and up. I can give you a ton more stories too.

I hate to do it, and I respect most of our military. My grandfather was at D-Day, my uncle served in Vietnam, I got two first cousins that have spent the better part of the last 10 years in Iraq, but I've been around that bad side. Unfortunately there are a good number of US servicemen that do a very large disservice to the ones that really are heroes.

I apologize if it offends anyone, but that is the truth, and a real reason that women should have access to these preventive methods as well as other options that many disagree with.

Hell look at Auburn. There has been what 4 or maybe 5 AUalert messages sent out during the Spring semester about coeds that have been found and have tested positive for the date rape drug. Those are just the ones that have actually been reported to the University. If you listen to the whispers there are organizations at Auburn that are rumored to be doing such things on a large scale.

Agree or disagree, but our military and even our college campus's are prime examples of how dangerous it can be sexually for women. I can not even speculate what the violation itself must be like, or how much greater it must be if a child were to occur from it.

And yes, there will also be that group that will just scream yippie! I can now go out and bang every hot guy I see with no concern.

Sorry PT, you just chose a bad mix for me on this one.

[TitanTiger 21,219]

You know, I'm going to say some things here that is gonna hit me with a lot hate and be very unpopular. The way our own military acts, since you showed them as a triumph to keeping women from birth control as part of the ACA, are a perfect example of why birth control for women ,regardless of how it works, should be made available and not withheld.

Stop right there. Nothing that happened the other day at the SCOTUS is keeping women from birth control nor is it being withheld. All that happened is that they decided that the government can't ignore the RFRA and the 1st Amendment in forcing someone else to pay for it. All the same forms of birth control that were available and legal to purchase before the Hobby Lobby case are still available and legal today.

Women are no more being denied birth control by this decision than I'm being denied ham sandwiches because kosher delis won't serve me one.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

TexT......you are so funny. Sure I love to see libs unhappy. Why not? If they are unhappy, I'm likely to be happy. I just find it ironic that when the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Obamacare the libs went bananas but when the same SOTUS rules against what they want the go beserk. Kind of hypocritical don't you think?