Unbiased study essentially shows liberals are social undesirables

[Jaecp]

The heck are you going on about? How does the thread translate to "crazy nonsense hardcore right" being "butthurt"? Judging by to the initial objective of the study, it wasn't done by those of the political right at all

Sheesh, dude, chill out.

Shhh, I'm talking to Spartacus. The first line is literally about information you don't have access to. I mean, unless you want to comb through dozens of hours of shoutbox text, I suppose.

[seanD]

Shhh, I'm talking to Spartacus. The first line is literally about information you don't have access to. I mean, unless you want to comb through dozens of hours of shoutbox text, I suppose.

Okay, forgive me. Wouldn't want infringe on your insider shoutbox discussion.

[fm93]

Unbiased study essentially shows liberals are social undesirables

Hmm, I wonder what the Bible says about people who are considered social undesirables:

[seanD]

Actually, in a sociopolitical sense, I would identify liberal social progressives as the Pharisees of modern times. A party that is an annoyance to many people in our culture because of the moralistic burdens (PC) they try and forcefully impose on society.

[fm93]

Actually, in a sociopolitical sense, I would identify liberal social progressives as the Pharisees of modern times. A party that is an annoyance to many people in our culture because of the moralistic burdens (PC) they try and forcefully impose on society.

That's some blatant goalpost-moving.

Anyhow, you're wrong, or more accurately, you're not fully right. There is no one group of people in today's society who are the modern moral equivalent of the Pharisees. That's because the mere status of being a Pharisee wasn't what Jesus condemned. After all, Gamaliel and Nicodemus were both Pharisees who are portrayed in a favorable light in the New Testament. Furthermore, the Pharisees were doctrinally the closest to the truth, so by your analogy, you're admitting that liberals are basically right.

Instead, what Jesus condemned was an attitude that some of the Pharisees happened to have--an attitude of being so obsessed with law that you neglect life-- and an attitude isn't something that can be inherently limited to specific people. Being pharisaical arises from the flaws of the human condition, and may therefore affect anyone. No one side has a monopoly on it; all sides have members who are afflicted by it. Norman Geisler acted pharisaically when he was such a stickler for "Biblical inerrancy" that he hurt Mike Licona's livelihood over the interpretation of Matthew 27. Certain conservative Christians acted pharisaically when they agreed to sponsor impoverished children for the humanitarian organization World Vision back in 2014, only to rescind their promise after WV decided to allow gay Christians to serve in the humanitarian efforts. Certain conservative Christian parents act pharisaically when they disown their children and kick them out of the house for coming out as gay. They impose moralistic burdens on them and don't lift a finger to help them in times of need.

And finally, by drawing such lines in the sand and declaring that an entire group of people who don't share your political beliefs are bad, you act pharisaically yourself. You're like the ones who sneered at Jesus for eating with tax collectors and sinners, for associating with prostitutes. You seem more anti-liberal than you are pro-Christian. Your attempt to portray your side as better makes you come off as bitter.

(And, of course, Jesus would certainly encourage thinking carefully about our speech and trying to better understand others, with the whole "Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks" thing and whatnot.)

[seanD]

Well, your attempt at gospel correlation doesn't work; in fact it actually backfires. More from the actual study...

In social situations, those who score high on P are more uncooperative, hostile, troublesome, and socially withdrawn, but lack feelings of inferiority and have an absence of anxiety. At the extremes, those scoring high on P are manipulative, tough-minded, and practical (Eysenck 1954). By contrast, people low on P are more likely to be more altruistic, well socialized, empathic, and conventional.

"Social Desirability" was a subscale of Psychoticism ("P"), which is what they had initially (and erroneously) classified conservatives before they corrected their errors and were forced to flip this around. As you can see, the characteristics of someone that typically scored high on "P" isn't exactly someone I think you'd argue would have been in Jesus' good graces. Perhaps you ought to read the study if you're going try and make those type of analogies. Like I said (which I was sort of kidding when I first said it), the liberal progressives fit more accurately into modern social Pharisees, if we're going try and make gospel comparisons.

[seanD]

How come no one sees the hilarious irony in this lol?

[Spartacus]

How come no one sees the hilarious irony in this lol?

I was amused by this story when I first saw it a couple of days ago, but your pathetic attempt at trolling has utterly killed the joke.

[seanD]

I was amused by this story when I first saw it a couple of days ago, but your pathetic attempt at trolling has utterly killed the joke.

So posting about a scientific study gone awry is trolling? Would it have been not trolling to just not post the story at all?

[Spartacus]

So posting about a scientific study gone awry is trolling? Would it have been not trolling to just not post the story at all?

That you keep accusing people of being in any way perturbed by it and telling them to calm down is evidence that you see this thread mostly as a way of trying to elicit a strong reaction. That's the very definition of trolling, and that you have continually assumed that it got the reaction you were looking for is further evidence of your intention.

[seanD]

That you keep accusing people of being in any way perturbed by it and telling them to calm down is evidence that you see this thread mostly as a way of trying to elicit a strong reaction. That's the very definition of trolling, and that you have continually assumed that it got the reaction you were looking for is further evidence of your intention.

You have to admit the instant reactions it got from three self-proclaimed liberals wasn't an attempt to engage any quality discussion on the subject.

To be frank, it sounds more like you're as butthurt as they were because I'm assuming you identify as liberal

[Spartacus]

You have to admit the instant reactions it got from three self-proclaimed liberals wasn't an attempt to engage any quality discussion on the subject.

None of them seemed particularly "butthurt" to me. What's more, you didn't exactly set the stage for a quality discussion. If you'd actually tried to prompt a quality discussion from this potentially fertile topic and gotten the sort of replies you got, then maybe you'd have room to mock the other people who've posted in this thread, but as it is, you posted a stupid thread and got stupid responses.

To be frank, it sounds more like you're as butthurt as they were because I'm assuming you identify as liberal

I'm annoyed because you butchered this story to a degree beyond what I thought TWeb was capable of achieving. Your assumption that I identify as a liberal is as utterly stupid and faulty as every other assumption you've made in this thread. I'm a lifelong Republican, but that doesn't mean I can't be annoyed when someone makes conservatism look stupid. In fact, it makes my annoyance more understandable: when you make conservatism look bad, you make me look bad, too.

[seanD]

None of them seemed particularly "butthurt" to me. What's more, you didn't exactly set the stage for a quality discussion. If you'd actually tried to prompt a quality discussion from this potentially fertile topic and gotten the sort of replies you got, then maybe you'd have room to mock the other people who've posted in this thread, but as it is, you posted a stupid thread and got stupid responses.



I'm annoyed because you butchered this story to a degree beyond what I thought TWeb was capable of achieving. Your assumption that I identify as a liberal is as utterly stupid and faulty as every other assumption you've made in this thread. I'm a lifelong Republican, but that doesn't mean I can't be annoyed when someone makes conservatism look stupid. In fact, it makes my annoyance more understandable: when you make conservatism look bad, you make me look bad, too.

It's funny how you contradicted yourself in your own post. First you say none of the first respondents seemed butthurt, but then in the very same freaking paragraph you call the responses stupid. This is one among many reasons I assumed you were liberal because of how personally bet out of shape you appear to be about it.

I didn't think I made any personal remarks in the OP than what was made in the study that deserved the initial stupid remarks it got. Okay where did I "butcher" the story and how would you have posted it differently than the OP?

[Spartacus]

It's funny how you contradicted yourself in your own post. First you say none of the first respondents seemed butthurt, but then in the very same freaking paragraph you call the responses stupid.

You were obviously trolling, and they trolled in response.

I didn't think I made any personal remarks in the OP than what was made in the study that deserved the initial stupid remarks it got. Okay where did I "butcher" the story and how would you have posted it differently than the OP?

I explained it to the extent I cared to in my first post in this thread. I don't feel any need to explain myself any more than I already have.

[seanD]

You were obviously trolling, and they trolled in response.



I explained it to the extent I cared to in my first post in this thread. I don't feel any need to explain myself any more than I already have.

You've accused me of quite a few things in your ridiculous self-righteous scorn, including trolling which, as of now, I'm not taking lightly. So I'll ask again...

I didn't think I made any personal remarks in the OP than what was made in the study that deserved the initial stupid remarks it got. Okay where did I "butcher" the story and how would you have posted it differently than the OP?