#1: You have no reading comprehension ability.

First, we don’t hate gays, etc. We hate those who hate them.[/quote]
So is this a “royal we” U.D.? Or do you speak for the entire blog?

Disapproving of something is hating?

Actually it means you are gender confused and like nearly always being confused means the confused person has problems.

Since all of us have our own problems and this isn’t a help group for gender confused people we just wish the dude would stick a red wood in it.

Very few if any of the other posters are interested in this topic any more than they want to hear about Uncle Ethbert’s hemorrhoids for the 97th time.

“This is BS. So many conservative politicians, priests, etc have been outed as gay, pedophiles, politicians and other ‘disgusting’ things for this to be true.”

Maybe they have been “outed” as some of these things like homosexuality are considered disgusting and are kept hidden but are also things that are not chosen.

#3 If Haidt is correct in his ideas, then you are mistaken. Liberals are not amoral, they only have narrower moral focus. According to Haidt, conservatives should be able to understand this as they share these morals with liberals but liberals might have difficulties understanding those conservative morals they do not share.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt

Conservatism used to mean, “Don’t interfere with my life unless I am harming someone else”. These days it means “Don’t interfere with my life, but please interfere with the lives of those people I don’t approve of”.

Non-liberal lefties want to interfere too, but at least they are consistent and upfront about wanting to interfere, while the new authoritarian conservatives want to have it both ways, cloaking themselves in the flag of liberty, claiming liberty for themselves and none for others they dissaprove of.

Then again, this is nothing new, some of early settlers fled Europe for “religious liberty” but when they got to North America didn’t apply that to anybody who disagreed with their religion, and we’re talking about expulsion, imprisonment and death.

LMAO – Man, you crack me up.

Since I was not privy to how the data was collected or the interpretation of the data I cannot speak to the researchers’ conclusions. I can speak to a likely back story. It follows:

Researcher A: Damn! I have no money and I have a house note and a car note coming do.

Researcher B: Me too!! What do we do?

Researcher C: I think we can get some grant money by writing up an experiment to show how liberals and conservatives differ in their respective responses in things that are nasty.

Researches A and B: Sounds good. Let’s do it.

Researcher C: O.K.

And thus kiddies is how we “know” that babies can count (i.e. 1+2=3).

If you want to “out” a conservative you can do the following:

You ask the person why there are poor people.

Now, when I ask the person the ‘poor people’ question I am 99.99% sure the person is a conservative. The reason I ask the question is because I love to see the pinheads squirm.

Without fail, the only response I get is a shooting daggers stair. They know that I know that they have only one verbal response:

The reason people are poor is that they are too lazy to work.

Try it. Works every time.

This little bit of projection was interesting:

I especially like how you end by giving yourself a pat on the back as if confirming some illusion that you care about more than what your fellow liberals think of you.

It makes sense that conservatives, trained to bray and strut about how moral they are, are overly concerned about what other conservatives think about them. It’s the appearance of morality that ultimately matters most to a conservative.

But it’s consistent with how things work in the U.S. The red states, where people brag so much of how moral they are, actually have higher incidences of “immoral” behavior than the places where people don’t brag so much (the blue states).

Dodd, you’re an interesting specimen of U.S. wingnut conservative. Thanks.