Study On Liberals and Ethics

[SUPERMAN1929]

So, Liberals are a study.

-Geaux
------------------

The trolley problem is that staple of moral psychology studies at dinner parties in which you ask someone to decide under what conditions it’s morally permissible to kill one person to save others.

Participants received one of two scenarios involving an individual who has to decide whether or not to throw a large man in the path of a trolley (described as large enough that he would stop the progress of the trolley) in order to prevent the trolley from killing 100 innocent individuals trapped in a bus.

Half of the participants received a version of the scenario where the agent could choose to sacrifice an individual named “Tyrone Payton” to save 100 members of the New York Philharmonic, and the other half received a version where the agent could choose to sacrifice “Chip Ellsworth III” to save 100 members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra. In both scenarios the individual decides to throw the person onto the trolley tracks.

While we did not provide specific information about the race of the individuals in the scenario, we reasoned that Chip and Tyrone were stereotypically associated with White American and Black American individuals respectively, and that the New York Philharmonic would be assumed to be majority White, and the Harlem Jazz Orchestra would be assumed to be majority Black.

Specifically, liberals were more likely to endorse a consequentialist justification when the victim had a stereotypically White name than when the victim had a stereotypically Black name. More conservative
participants (1 SD above the mean) did not give reliably different endorsements of consequentialism across scenario versions.

http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/jdm9616.pdf

Lol how typical of you to leave information out. It says right in the abstract that in study 3 conservatives were more likely to sacrifice the entire group of innocents if they were of Iraqi origin.

Thread over.

That's already been mentioned. I don't think many republicans dispute the testing. I don't give a fuck if a bunch of donkey fucking terrorists die.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do liberals have no ethics?

We do have ethics in any given situation; unlike the Right with morals.

 

[Billy000]

So, Liberals are a study.

-Geaux
------------------

The trolley problem is that staple of moral psychology studies at dinner parties in which you ask someone to decide under what conditions it’s morally permissible to kill one person to save others.

Participants received one of two scenarios involving an individual who has to decide whether or not to throw a large man in the path of a trolley (described as large enough that he would stop the progress of the trolley) in order to prevent the trolley from killing 100 innocent individuals trapped in a bus.

Half of the participants received a version of the scenario where the agent could choose to sacrifice an individual named “Tyrone Payton” to save 100 members of the New York Philharmonic, and the other half received a version where the agent could choose to sacrifice “Chip Ellsworth III” to save 100 members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra. In both scenarios the individual decides to throw the person onto the trolley tracks.

While we did not provide specific information about the race of the individuals in the scenario, we reasoned that Chip and Tyrone were stereotypically associated with White American and Black American individuals respectively, and that the New York Philharmonic would be assumed to be majority White, and the Harlem Jazz Orchestra would be assumed to be majority Black.

Specifically, liberals were more likely to endorse a consequentialist justification when the victim had a stereotypically White name than when the victim had a stereotypically Black name. More conservative
participants (1 SD above the mean) did not give reliably different endorsements of consequentialism across scenario versions.

http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/jdm9616.pdf

Lol how typical of you to leave information out. It says right in the abstract that in study 3 conservatives were more likely to sacrifice the entire group of innocents if they were of Iraqi origin.

Thread over.

That's already been mentioned. I don't think many republicans dispute the testing. I don't give a fuck if a bunch of donkey fucking terrorists die.

Yes how typical for your simple mind to pathetically generalize Iraqis when the study clearly labeled them "innocent". You are a testament to the rightwing aren't you?

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

So, Liberals are a study.

-Geaux
------------------

The trolley problem is that staple of moral psychology studies at dinner parties in which you ask someone to decide under what conditions it’s morally permissible to kill one person to save others.

Participants received one of two scenarios involving an individual who has to decide whether or not to throw a large man in the path of a trolley (described as large enough that he would stop the progress of the trolley) in order to prevent the trolley from killing 100 innocent individuals trapped in a bus.

Half of the participants received a version of the scenario where the agent could choose to sacrifice an individual named “Tyrone Payton” to save 100 members of the New York Philharmonic, and the other half received a version where the agent could choose to sacrifice “Chip Ellsworth III” to save 100 members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra. In both scenarios the individual decides to throw the person onto the trolley tracks.

While we did not provide specific information about the race of the individuals in the scenario, we reasoned that Chip and Tyrone were stereotypically associated with White American and Black American individuals respectively, and that the New York Philharmonic would be assumed to be majority White, and the Harlem Jazz Orchestra would be assumed to be majority Black.

Specifically, liberals were more likely to endorse a consequentialist justification when the victim had a stereotypically White name than when the victim had a stereotypically Black name. More conservative
participants (1 SD above the mean) did not give reliably different endorsements of consequentialism across scenario versions.

http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/jdm9616.pdf

Lol how typical of you to leave information out. It says right in the abstract that in study 3 conservatives were more likely to sacrifice the entire group of innocents if they were of Iraqi origin.

Thread over.

That's already been mentioned. I don't think many republicans dispute the testing. I don't give a fuck if a bunch of donkey fucking terrorists die.

Yes how typical for your simple mind to pathetically generalize Iraqis when the study clearly labeled them "innocent". You are a testament to the rightwing aren't you?

Kill the enemy. I'm a libertarian. I don't like war but if we're in war and they are going to commit acts of terrorism then they can have their own innocents killed. I value American's lives over theirs.

 

[Billy000]

So, Liberals are a study.

-Geaux
------------------

The trolley problem is that staple of moral psychology studies at dinner parties in which you ask someone to decide under what conditions it’s morally permissible to kill one person to save others.

Participants received one of two scenarios involving an individual who has to decide whether or not to throw a large man in the path of a trolley (described as large enough that he would stop the progress of the trolley) in order to prevent the trolley from killing 100 innocent individuals trapped in a bus.

Half of the participants received a version of the scenario where the agent could choose to sacrifice an individual named “Tyrone Payton” to save 100 members of the New York Philharmonic, and the other half received a version where the agent could choose to sacrifice “Chip Ellsworth III” to save 100 members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra. In both scenarios the individual decides to throw the person onto the trolley tracks.

While we did not provide specific information about the race of the individuals in the scenario, we reasoned that Chip and Tyrone were stereotypically associated with White American and Black American individuals respectively, and that the New York Philharmonic would be assumed to be majority White, and the Harlem Jazz Orchestra would be assumed to be majority Black.

Specifically, liberals were more likely to endorse a consequentialist justification when the victim had a stereotypically White name than when the victim had a stereotypically Black name. More conservative
participants (1 SD above the mean) did not give reliably different endorsements of consequentialism across scenario versions.

http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/jdm9616.pdf

Lol how typical of you to leave information out. It says right in the abstract that in study 3 conservatives were more likely to sacrifice the entire group of innocents if they were of Iraqi origin.

Thread over.

That's already been mentioned. I don't think many republicans dispute the testing. I don't give a fuck if a bunch of donkey fucking terrorists die.

Yes how typical for your simple mind to pathetically generalize Iraqis when the study clearly labeled them "innocent". You are a testament to the rightwing aren't you?

Kill the enemy. I'm a libertarian. I don't like war but if we're in war and they are going to commit acts of terrorism then they can have their own innocents killed. I value American's lives over theirs.

This is more proof the rightwing is based upon pure emotion rather than rational thinking.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

So, Liberals are a study.

-Geaux
------------------

The trolley problem is that staple of moral psychology studies at dinner parties in which you ask someone to decide under what conditions it’s morally permissible to kill one person to save others.

Participants received one of two scenarios involving an individual who has to decide whether or not to throw a large man in the path of a trolley (described as large enough that he would stop the progress of the trolley) in order to prevent the trolley from killing 100 innocent individuals trapped in a bus.

Half of the participants received a version of the scenario where the agent could choose to sacrifice an individual named “Tyrone Payton” to save 100 members of the New York Philharmonic, and the other half received a version where the agent could choose to sacrifice “Chip Ellsworth III” to save 100 members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra. In both scenarios the individual decides to throw the person onto the trolley tracks.

While we did not provide specific information about the race of the individuals in the scenario, we reasoned that Chip and Tyrone were stereotypically associated with White American and Black American individuals respectively, and that the New York Philharmonic would be assumed to be majority White, and the Harlem Jazz Orchestra would be assumed to be majority Black.

Specifically, liberals were more likely to endorse a consequentialist justification when the victim had a stereotypically White name than when the victim had a stereotypically Black name. More conservative
participants (1 SD above the mean) did not give reliably different endorsements of consequentialism across scenario versions.

http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/jdm9616.pdf

Lol how typical of you to leave information out. It says right in the abstract that in study 3 conservatives were more likely to sacrifice the entire group of innocents if they were of Iraqi origin.

Thread over.

That's already been mentioned. I don't think many republicans dispute the testing. I don't give a fuck if a bunch of donkey fucking terrorists die.

Yes how typical for your simple mind to pathetically generalize Iraqis when the study clearly labeled them "innocent". You are a testament to the rightwing aren't you?

Kill the enemy. I'm a libertarian. I don't like war but if we're in war and they are going to commit acts of terrorism then they can have their own innocents killed. I value American's lives over theirs.

This is more proof the rightwing is based upon pure emotion rather than rational thinking.

War isn't rational. How is it not rational to look out after your own country over the world? It's like putting your family ahead of random strangers. If you don't understand the concept then you have a heart of ice.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Participants. Eighty-eight undergraduate students at the
University of California, Irvine participated for course
credit."

Those were divided into two groups. Therefore the sample size was 44 college students per scenario.

LOL, from this, you people see the justification for profound conclusions,

you people who will reject a 1000 participant poll in a heartbeat if you don't like what the poll found.

Grow up.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Note that the unethical OP failed to include the following study demonstrating the lack of conservative ethics.

Study 3 found conservatives were more likely to endorse the unintended killing of innocent civilians when Iraqis civilians were killed than when Americans civilians were killed, while liberals showed no significant effect.​

Google "collateral damage"...it's part of war. Your argument is invalid

This response is so stupid. Here you are presented with evidence that conservatives would sacrifice innocent civilians if they were Iraqi and you justify it with something as stupid and irrelavant as "it's part of war". What the fuck does war have to do with this let alone collateral damage?

Collateral damage is part of war, the poster tried to link the two together, Billy Boy.

 

[Billy000]

Lol how typical of you to leave information out. It says right in the abstract that in study 3 conservatives were more likely to sacrifice the entire group of innocents if they were of Iraqi origin.

Thread over.

That's already been mentioned. I don't think many republicans dispute the testing. I don't give a fuck if a bunch of donkey fucking terrorists die.

Yes how typical for your simple mind to pathetically generalize Iraqis when the study clearly labeled them "innocent". You are a testament to the rightwing aren't you?

Kill the enemy. I'm a libertarian. I don't like war but if we're in war and they are going to commit acts of terrorism then they can have their own innocents killed. I value American's lives over theirs.

This is more proof the rightwing is based upon pure emotion rather than rational thinking.

War isn't rational. How is it not rational to look out after your own country over the world? It's like putting your family ahead of random strangers. If you don't understand the concept then you have a heart of ice.

Ok this isnt hard to grasp. This study has NOTHING to do with war. We are talking about innocent civilians that conservatives are content with killing.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

That's already been mentioned. I don't think many republicans dispute the testing. I don't give a fuck if a bunch of donkey fucking terrorists die.

Yes how typical for your simple mind to pathetically generalize Iraqis when the study clearly labeled them "innocent". You are a testament to the rightwing aren't you?

Kill the enemy. I'm a libertarian. I don't like war but if we're in war and they are going to commit acts of terrorism then they can have their own innocents killed. I value American's lives over theirs.

This is more proof the rightwing is based upon pure emotion rather than rational thinking.

War isn't rational. How is it not rational to look out after your own country over the world? It's like putting your family ahead of random strangers. If you don't understand the concept then you have a heart of ice.

Ok this isnt hard to grasp. This study has NOTHING to do with war. We are talking about innocent civilians that conservatives are content with killing.

It does have something to do with war considering they chose a group who hates the US and continues to threaten it/kill US citizens and commit acts of terrorism. If you can't see that then you're mentally challenged.

 

[Billy000]

Note that the unethical OP failed to include the following study demonstrating the lack of conservative ethics.

Study 3 found conservatives were more likely to endorse the unintended killing of innocent civilians when Iraqis civilians were killed than when Americans civilians were killed, while liberals showed no significant effect.​

Google "collateral damage"...it's part of war. Your argument is invalid

This response is so stupid. Here you are presented with evidence that conservatives would sacrifice innocent civilians if they were Iraqi and you justify it with something as stupid and irrelavant as "it's part of war". What the fuck does war have to do with this let alone collateral damage?

Collateral damage is part of war, the poster tried to link the two together, Billy Boy.

This study has nothing to do with war which is why what you are saying is complete non sense.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Note that the unethical OP failed to include the following study demonstrating the lack of conservative ethics.

Study 3 found conservatives were more likely to endorse the unintended killing of innocent civilians when Iraqis civilians were killed than when Americans civilians were killed, while liberals showed no significant effect.​

Google "collateral damage"...it's part of war. Your argument is invalid

This response is so stupid. Here you are presented with evidence that conservatives would sacrifice innocent civilians if they were Iraqi and you justify it with something as stupid and irrelavant as "it's part of war". What the fuck does war have to do with this let alone collateral damage?

Collateral damage is part of war, the poster tried to link the two together, Billy Boy.

This study has nothing to do with war which is why what you are saying is complete non sense.

Again, you slow witted fool, the other poster brought war into it. Good grief, are you daft?

 

[Billy000]

Yes how typical for your simple mind to pathetically generalize Iraqis when the study clearly labeled them "innocent". You are a testament to the rightwing aren't you?

Kill the enemy. I'm a libertarian. I don't like war but if we're in war and they are going to commit acts of terrorism then they can have their own innocents killed. I value American's lives over theirs.

This is more proof the rightwing is based upon pure emotion rather than rational thinking.

War isn't rational. How is it not rational to look out after your own country over the world? It's like putting your family ahead of random strangers. If you don't understand the concept then you have a heart of ice.

Ok this isnt hard to grasp. This study has NOTHING to do with war. We are talking about innocent civilians that conservatives are content with killing.

It does have something to do with war considering they chose a group who hates the US and continues to threaten it/kill US citizens and commit acts of terrorism. If you can't see that then you're mentally challenged.

You are a complete moron if you think Iraqis in general want to kill Americans.

 

[Billy000]

Note that the unethical OP failed to include the following study demonstrating the lack of conservative ethics.

Study 3 found conservatives were more likely to endorse the unintended killing of innocent civilians when Iraqis civilians were killed than when Americans civilians were killed, while liberals showed no significant effect.​

Google "collateral damage"...it's part of war. Your argument is invalid

This response is so stupid. Here you are presented with evidence that conservatives would sacrifice innocent civilians if they were Iraqi and you justify it with something as stupid and irrelavant as "it's part of war". What the fuck does war have to do with this let alone collateral damage?

Collateral damage is part of war, the poster tried to link the two together, Billy Boy.

This study has nothing to do with war which is why what you are saying is complete non sense.

Again, you slow witted fool, the other poster brought war into it. Good grief, are you daft?

No he didn't you ass clown. He said nothing of the sort.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Google "collateral damage"...it's part of war. Your argument is invalid

This response is so stupid. Here you are presented with evidence that conservatives would sacrifice innocent civilians if they were Iraqi and you justify it with something as stupid and irrelavant as "it's part of war". What the fuck does war have to do with this let alone collateral damage?

Collateral damage is part of war, the poster tried to link the two together, Billy Boy.

This study has nothing to do with war which is why what you are saying is complete non sense.

Again, you slow witted fool, the other poster brought war into it. Good grief, are you daft?

No he didn't you ass clown. He said nothing of the sort.

Yeah he did, now run along and watch cartoons, fool

 

[Billy000]

This response is so stupid. Here you are presented with evidence that conservatives would sacrifice innocent civilians if they were Iraqi and you justify it with something as stupid and irrelavant as "it's part of war". What the fuck does war have to do with this let alone collateral damage?

Collateral damage is part of war, the poster tried to link the two together, Billy Boy.

This study has nothing to do with war which is why what you are saying is complete non sense.

Again, you slow witted fool, the other poster brought war into it. Good grief, are you daft?

No he didn't you ass clown. He said nothing of the sort.

Yeah he did, now run along and watch cartoons, fool

Lol it's amazing how disingenuous you people are. You defend the views of conservatives in this study with such pathetic justifications. Why can't you just admit how immoral these people are? Right now you are just rambling.

 

[kaz]

That's already been mentioned. I don't think many republicans dispute the testing. I don't give a fuck if a bunch of donkey fucking terrorists die.

Yes how typical for your simple mind to pathetically generalize Iraqis when the study clearly labeled them "innocent". You are a testament to the rightwing aren't you?

Kill the enemy. I'm a libertarian. I don't like war but if we're in war and they are going to commit acts of terrorism then they can have their own innocents killed. I value American's lives over theirs.

This is more proof the rightwing is based upon pure emotion rather than rational thinking.

War isn't rational. How is it not rational to look out after your own country over the world? It's like putting your family ahead of random strangers. If you don't understand the concept then you have a heart of ice.

Ok this isnt hard to grasp. This study has NOTHING to do with war. We are talking about innocent civilians that conservatives are content with killing.

LOL, but you're not a Democrat.

Apparently liberals are too, at least if it's a white guy

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Kill the enemy. I'm a libertarian. I don't like war but if we're in war and they are going to commit acts of terrorism then they can have their own innocents killed. I value American's lives over theirs.

This is more proof the rightwing is based upon pure emotion rather than rational thinking.

War isn't rational. How is it not rational to look out after your own country over the world? It's like putting your family ahead of random strangers. If you don't understand the concept then you have a heart of ice.

Ok this isnt hard to grasp. This study has NOTHING to do with war. We are talking about innocent civilians that conservatives are content with killing.

It does have something to do with war considering they chose a group who hates the US and continues to threaten it/kill US citizens and commit acts of terrorism. If you can't see that then you're mentally challenged.

You are a complete moron if you think Iraqis in general want to kill Americans.

Read the Quran and then tell me they don't. Also look at all their terrorist factions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is more proof the rightwing is based upon pure emotion rather than rational thinking.

War isn't rational. How is it not rational to look out after your own country over the world? It's like putting your family ahead of random strangers. If you don't understand the concept then you have a heart of ice.

Ok this isnt hard to grasp. This study has NOTHING to do with war. We are talking about innocent civilians that conservatives are content with killing.

It does have something to do with war considering they chose a group who hates the US and continues to threaten it/kill US citizens and commit acts of terrorism. If you can't see that then you're mentally challenged.

You are a complete moron if you think Iraqis in general want to kill Americans.

Read the Quran and then tell me they don't. Also look at all their terrorist factions.

Few Muslims follow the Koran. Few Christians follow the Bible.

 

[Geaux4it]

War isn't rational. How is it not rational to look out after your own country over the world? It's like putting your family ahead of random strangers. If you don't understand the concept then you have a heart of ice.

Ok this isnt hard to grasp. This study has NOTHING to do with war. We are talking about innocent civilians that conservatives are content with killing.

It does have something to do with war considering they chose a group who hates the US and continues to threaten it/kill US citizens and commit acts of terrorism. If you can't see that then you're mentally challenged.

You are a complete moron if you think Iraqis in general want to kill Americans.

Read the Quran and then tell me they don't. Also look at all their terrorist factions.

Few Muslims follow the Koran. Few Christians follow the Bible.

A bold assumption

-Geaux