Pretty accurate observation. Doesn't say Liberals are immoral, just that Conservatives are more strict in their code on the whole.

Did you guys even read the article? It doesn't say anything about the strictness of conservative morals but rather that conservatives and liberals have different moral perspectives.

...and the article is comparing conservatives and liberals not Conservatives and Liberals.

@Sunzi...the "different moral perspective" you reference is this: Conservatives have a more clearly defined and rigid definition of what is right and what is wrong, generally down to specific activities, whereas Liberals tend to be morally * relativistic*. A common phrase heard by Liberals would be "Well, *I* would never do that, but if they want to, go for it" (for example, in reference to abortion, or anal sex...). The Conservative would say, "I wouldn't do it, it's wrong, and you shouldn't do it either."

This is NOT a moral judgement on either philosophy, it is simply saying Conservatives have a more well defined (rigid, strict, etc) moral compass.

So did you prove once more that you didn't read the article. Well maybe that is part of your strict moral compass...

Orathaic, krellin was explaining the article using additional outside knowledge, not just restating it. Just because somebody says something that wasn't stated in the article doesn't mean they didn't read it. They might be adding their own observations or thoughts.

Yes semck - Orthaic, if people can *only* restate what the article has said, then why are you fucking putting it up for discussion! You only demonstrate that you are truly not looking for a discussion, but for just some sort of reassurance of a per-concieved notion. I have specifically not been controversial in my statements in order to foster discussion, but you, apparently, are too dimwitted to grasp that, or narrow minded...either way, same effect. I feel sorry for you.

The irony is of course if people are brought up very strict and are sexually repressed they are more predisposed to taking it up the chuff than would be if brought up normally, why is this?

I do agree with the assertion that conservative morals are more rigid and tend to view issues as black and white but I still don't understand how that has anything to do with disgust. With regard to krellin's statement that "Liberals tend to be morally * relativistic*", I think this in some way misses the mark. Take his two example issues for instance. In the first example of abortion, a conservative would indeed say "I wouldn't do it, it's wrong, and you shouldn't do it either." but the liberal point of view isn't "Well, *I* would never do that, but if they want to, go for it" but rather that in some cases the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the unborn child. The second example of anal sex is a good example of what the article is really talking about. Do you actually imagine that conservatives would vote for a law saying they can't have anal sex with their wives? The issue really is about same-sex marriage but when we focus on the shocking and, to some, 'disgusting' act of *OMG* anal sex all people, liberals and conservatives alike, tend towards a more conservative view. To boil all this down to the observation that conservative morals are somehow stricter is just vacuous.

Conservative 'morals' aren't strict when it comes to torturing other human beings or killing them for profit. That outrage is reserved for 'liberals'. It's not conservatives who are getting their heads busted in in Chicago fighting against state repression, war, and corporate greed. All of which the left finds disgusting but the right has no problem with.

It's a matter of priorities. Conservatives hate love and love hate. Liberals love love and hate hate.

I use liberals loosely, I generally mean anyone from social democrats on leftward.

Now now now....are you suggesting that homosexuality is a behavior resulting, perhaps in large part, due to upbringing, rather than by genetics??? You're going to piss off a lot of people bringing up such a suggestion. That is one area where Liberals have a *very* strict moral code -- homosexuality **must must must** be nature and can not be a choice!!! Of course, that assertion is not based upon fact, but does support the "looser moral code" (I wouldn't do it...but I can't judge him....it's "natural"...)

You'd best back up your anecdotal assertion before you get verbally raped (by those that oppose such behavior...) (such behavior being both rape and verbal abuse...which, apparently when combined, become acceptable...)

<flick....flick, flick....whooooosh!!!> <Ahhh....look at the pretty flames....>

@Sunzi -- Bringing up the rights of the mother in abortion is just the particular excuse for "well, if they want to do it...go for it". A Conservative says it is wrong, period. A liberal equivocates, makes excuses for why behavior they "personally" don't agree with is OK for someone else. You actually made my point for me.

What is vacuous is your ability to grasp that you made my point for me.

As for Putin....your views on *every* action in this world tend to be exactly 180 degrees from reality. Thugs in the street violate the law, and when the police enforce the law, THEY are bad in your eyes....oh....wait...unless it's the KGB cracking skulls, or some bitch Middle Eastern madman raping having his men drag women to the rape room....then they are OK, because it's not their fault because --- say it with me now - the evil capitalist pigs in America MADE them do it.
You are a blithering idiot, Putin.

@Putin -- not to mention that fact that I have *specifically* tried to leave the judgement of a particular ethic/moral code out of this discussion. I have not said Conseratives or Liberals are right or wrong...I just say they view morality differently.

But it's hilarious that you think Liberals are somehow noble when they riot and vandalize people's shit, or call for a lynching of an innocent man...but if a Conservative commits an act of violence, he is pure evil. Your hypocrisy is simply astounding. I truly pity you, man, because you must be one of the most miserable mf'ers in this world, holding tight like a baby to a bottle a philosophy that has failed time and time again, and always will. It's sad...

"@Putin -- not to mention that fact that I have *specifically* tried to leave the judgement of a particular ethic/moral code out of this discussion."

Your analysis is faulty. I don't care if you you didn't 'judge' anyone, it's a crap analysis. The left is more moralistic than the amoral right, not less. The right just made a devil's pact with a bunch of religious fundamentalists to gain votes. On most issues the right is completely a moral, worshipping selfishness, money, and military force.

@krellin
You still miss the point. A liberal says it is wrong to take rights away from the mother. How can you possibly view that as equivocal?

@krellin "I have *specifically* tried to leave the judgement of a particular ethic/moral code out of this discussion."

Too bad you can't seem to leave personal attacks out of the discussion too.

Something I find confusing, why right-wingers are anti-abortion. I thought they would be pro-abortion for blacks, gays, Jews and Spics so they don't spread any faster.
If it wasn't for abortion how many more unwanted children would be roaming the planet causing misery and chaos ??

Excuse me, Putin, but aren't you busy in another thread complaining about the Apostles as being violent rabble rousers, worthy of per se condemnation, because they breached the peace and caused unrest where they went? Do you see no inconsistency between that and praising the Chicago rioters in this thread?

LOL. Rightwingers have never seen a peaceful (American) protest they didn't denounce as a 'riot'. Especially Semck. My god, I think the first "discussion" I ever had with this authoritarian was about his admiration for police brutality against Occupy Wall Street protesters. If Syrian terrorists kill dozens of people in Damascus with suicide bombs, the right will be touting it as a 'peaceful protest' though.

Also, last I checked the Chicago protesters weren't an apocalyptic cult who wanted to install some wannabe Messiah as the world king by brute force. Way to compare apples and potatoes.

Well, it doesn't matter whether it's a riot or not, right -- if they're causing unrest, they're guilty, no? Based on the other thread anyway.

"who wanted to install some wannabe Messiah as the world king by brute force"

They didn't. Sources please.

"Well, it doesn't matter whether it's a riot or not, right -- if they're causing unrest, they're guilty, no? Based on the other thread anyway."

Way to miss the point, as per usual.

"They didn't. Sources please."

I already went over this. Try reading, for once.

So, this might be a dumb question, but if this article is to be believed, and conservative anti-gay values really do stem from feelings of disgust, who cares? What do their feelings of disgust have to do with social policy? Or even moral judgements, for that matter? It's wrong because someone thinks it's kinda gross? I've gotta say I'm disgusted at the idea of open heart surgery, but that doesn't mean I think anyone should ban it.

Also, what does disgust at the thought of anal sex have to do with gay marriage? Even in jurisdictions where gay marriage is illegal, gay people still have sex, married or no. So not only is conservative disgust completely irrelevant, it's not even directed at the right thing. Also, not all gay men have or like anal sex. Lots of guys just stick to oral and other stuff, because anal can be uncomfortable or just plain complicated at times. Are you saying that conservatives are also disgusted at the idea of oral sex? Or is it really just the idea of two guys (it's almost always guys, lesbians don't set off the same "disgust" reaction) being intimate?

Actually, there are a large number of outstanding questions to you on the other thread, the overall import of which is that you haven't even begun to make your case. Oh, and you linked a massive tome, universally considered to be legend, called it historical source, and refused even to give any page numbers. (I HAVE been looking at it, and I still don't see the violence you speak of, but obviously, I haven't made it very far).

I didn't refuse. I gave you the numbers. Sorry if you're not the center of my fucking universe. You asked for a source, then when I provided that, that wasn't enough, you wanted a fucking book report too. Why Christians would invent legends which make "pacifist" Apostles into people who were very willing to rain fire from heaven down on anybody who opposed them, not to mention torture and kill them, is beyond me.

And I'm still waiting for any early account of the Apostles lives at all, coming from you, if we're believe the narrative that this cult was all peaceful.

You know, I've lived in Chicago long enough to distrust every single word CPD utters about protesters and their alleged violence. The vast majority of protestors in Chicago are philosophical pacifists. You can't be a pacifist on CPD. I'm pretty certain that the violence surrounding the Chicago protests comes primarily from the organization that has a historical willingness to crack skulls, and that hasn't described the American left in quite some time.

'are you suggesting that homosexuality is a behavior resulting, perhaps in large part, due to upbringing, rather than by genetics?'

Not much time, but identical twins are not always both homosexual, thus genetics alone does not explain this behvaiour. As with all complex behaviour their is a genetic component aswell as an environmental one (where hormonal chemical environment of the womb - shared by identical twins - is an example or component of the eenvironment...)

And good luck fanning the flames Krellin, ye of encouraging discussions.

@orthaic -- now now....let's not get uppity. I have been very rationale in this discussion (Putin aside...) I only reference fanning flames because, rational or not, making certain ideas a part of the discussion will naturally send some people (who are less tolerant of discourse...) off the deep end. Putin is a fine example of that, as am I at times...and you...but I ask you to be fair: I have been quite behaved here in regards to this discussion.

@ora - Identical twins do *not* have identical DNA, no matter what the text books may say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html

@draug - wow.

<damn....and I was plannign on stealing Draugnar's liver when I kill mine...>

So whar i like about the article is the distinction between people who think 'we should all behave like this so the group will thrive' and the ones who think 'individuals should be happy so they can thrive and thus the group should treat them like that.'

Where the this and that contradict each other is an interesting question, though also the focus of one seems to be on individuals, but it is far more inclusive of individuals thus making for a larger 'group' with which one is willing to identify...

I mention only because i've often considered the identification with a group, and the scale one is willing to consider to be an important factor... for, i dunno wolrd peace 'n' stuff...

lol gay