wmw999 2,587 #1 June 28, 2012 Here (yeah, I know you have to pay, but I'll summarize it and point you at the book -- I won't copy and paste the whole thing) The upshot is probably in this sentenceQuote“The Righteous Mind,” by Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia psychology professor, argues that, for liberals, morality is largely a matter of three values: caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. Conservatives share those concerns (although they think of fairness and liberty differently) and add three others: loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity.The upshot is that because liberals value the three, they discount the impact of the other three; conservatives value all six basic concerns. Apparently in the book (Amazon pointer) he goes into more detail on this. It's an interesting idea; I kind of like it, even if I don't really like the thought that I see the world in fewer colors in one sense. The upshot of the book is that the world needs both sides (all three, really, including hte libertarians). Note for those who automatically discount anything not in Conservapedia: Most of the one-star ratings come from liberals, not conservatives. When one values only what's important to one's self, lesser decisions are made. That's OK when there's some urgency -- emergencies, law enforcement, refereeing, etc. But when trying to craft legislation, or talk to one's congresscritters, understanding the value of others' viewpoints is really, really important. Because people will work together for a shared sense of urgency, and we in America really need to work together more. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #2 June 28, 2012 QuoteHere (yeah, I know you have to pay, but I'll summarize it and point you at the book -- I won't copy and paste the whole thing) The upshot is probably in this sentenceQuote“The Righteous Mind,” by Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia psychology professor, argues that, for liberals, morality is largely a matter of three values: caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. Conservatives share those concerns (although they think of fairness and liberty differently) and add three others: loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity.The upshot is that because liberals value the three, they discount the impact of the other three; conservatives value all six basic concerns. Apparently in the book (Amazon pointer) he goes into more detail on this. It's an interesting idea; I kind of like it, even if I don't really like the thought that I see the world in fewer colors in one sense. The upshot of the book is that the world needs both sides (all three, really, including hte libertarians). Note for those who automatically discount anything not in Conservapedia: Most of the one-star ratings come from liberals, not conservatives. When one values only what's important to one's self, lesser decisions are made. That's OK when there's some urgency -- emergencies, law enforcement, refereeing, etc. But when trying to craft legislation, or talk to one's congresscritters, understanding the value of others' viewpoints is really, really important. Because people will work together for a shared sense of urgency, and we in America really need to work together more. Wendy P. Sounds about right, thank you for searching and sharing.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie 3 #3 June 28, 2012 my thoughts on the subject are simple: every legal citizen of this country should have the same rights as every other legal citizen and should be allowed to do anything they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else. that is perfectly reasonable, and even achievable. what is so hard about that?http://kitswv.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #4 June 28, 2012 Quotemy thoughts on the subject are simple: every legal citizen of this country should have the same rights as every other legal citizen and should be allowed to do anything they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else. that is perfectly reasonable, and even achievable. what is so hard about that? Just for the record, what is an ILLEGAL citizen?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #5 June 28, 2012 No legal rights for foreign tourist? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 893 #6 June 28, 2012 That issues always bothers me too - how the hell does a non-citizen have constitutional rights? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #7 June 28, 2012 QuoteThat issues always bothers me too - how the hell does a non-citizen have constitutional rights? Pretty simple - if, for example, a tourist is here legally from Yokohama, constitutional safeguards that are not specific to U.S. citizens still apply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #8 June 28, 2012 >how the hell does a non-citizen have constitutional rights? The US Constitution starts off "We the People of the United States" not "We the Citizens of the United States." There are very few places in the Constitution where rights are granted only to citizens, and many places where they are granted to all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aphid 0 #9 June 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteThat issues always bothers me too - how the hell does a non-citizen have constitutional rights? Pretty simple - if, for example, a tourist is here legally from Yokohama, constitutional safeguards that are not specific to U.S. citizens still apply. Not quite so simple. If you're a tourist standing on US soil at a US Port of Entry intending to enter legally, and the US Customs convert your request to attempting to enter illegally, your access to challenge/appeal the over-reach to the US courts via Habeas Corpus (as embedded in your Constitution) is categorically denied. So far. But still fighting. :) John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #10 June 28, 2012 Quote>how the hell does a non-citizen have constitutional rights? The US Constitution starts off "We the People of the United States" not "We the Citizens of the United States." There are very few places in the Constitution where rights are granted only to citizens, and many places where they are granted to all. rights are not "granted" they are acknowledged and protected ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #11 June 28, 2012 QuoteThat issues always bothers me too - how the hell does a non-citizen have constitutional rights? Read the 14th Amendment and all will be revealed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 893 #12 June 28, 2012 "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." That was revealed to me years ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie 3 #13 June 28, 2012 if you obtained citizenship legally, that makes you a legal citizen. but i'm not a lawyer, thank the gods, so it probably isn't the case. i am referring to illegal immigrants, not legal ones. and to the other question about tourists, they should be protected to the fullest extent of the law, as long as they are not violating any laws while here. in other words, they should be treated well.http://kitswv.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #14 June 28, 2012 Quoteif you obtained citizenship legally, that makes you a legal citizen. but i'm not a lawyer, thank the gods, so it probably isn't the case. i am referring to illegal immigrants, not legal ones. If you wrote what you meant, folks wouldn't question you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #15 June 28, 2012 Quote That issues always bothers me too - how the hell does a non-citizen have constitutional rights? Quote Read the 14th Amendment and all will be revealed. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." That was revealed to me years ago. That is just the first sentence of Section 1. Did you miss a revelation of the rest of it then? "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Are you considering non-citizens to be non-persons?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
