Reactions To Disgusting Images Predict a Persons Political Ideology 330
LuxuryYacht writes A new study shows that the way your brain responds to photos of of maggots, mutilated carcasses, and gunk in the kitchen sink gives a pretty good indication of whether you're liberal or conservative. "Remarkably, we found that the brain's response to a single disgusting image was enough to predict an individual's political ideology," Read Montague, a Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute psychology professor who led the study, said in a written statement. 83 men and women viewed a series of images while having their brains scanned in a functional MRI (fMRI) machine. The images included the disgusting photos described above, along with photos of babies and pleasant landscapes. Afterward, the participants were asked to rate how grossed out they were by each photo. They also completed a survey about their political beliefs, which included questions about their attitudes toward school prayer, gun control, immigration, and gay marriage. There was no significant difference in how liberals and conservatives rated the photos. But the researchers noted differences between the two groups in the activity of brain regions associated with disgust recognition, emotion regulation, attention and even memory. The differences were so pronounced that the researchers could analyze a scan and predict the person's political leaning with 95 percent accuracy.
Two things. (Score:5, Insightful)
First:
Second:
So what would the results be if the recruits were from a more "Liberal" country?
That is the problem with these "studies". DO NOT look in your backyard for cases that support your bias. Look for cases that contradict your bias. Even if you have to look at the people in other countries. Particularly countries where there is less focus on the items that are controversial in the USofA.
Re:Two things. (Score:5, Insightful)
And boy let me tell you, the items that are controversial in the USofA are not the same ones that are controversial over here in Europe. Of course we get a smattering of IS and Ebola related news this time of year, but in general political discourse tends to not involve discussions on what one should be doing with one's penis, vagina, uterus or the contents thereof, but much more about the re-distribution of wealth and the state of law.
I see that both in Israel and the US, to be honest: A focus on the irrelevant. Case in point being that the security craze and hype surrounding 9/11 has caused a spike in ground traffic that killed more people than the 9/11 incident itself. It seems to me that both the US and Israel have a greater tendency than normal to hype relatively small risk factors and completely and blatantly ignore evidence for large looming risk factors, even in the face of mounting evidence.
The more progressive a society gets, the more balanced people's view is on risk. Whether the one causes the other or vice versa, I do not know. The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland are decidedly more earthy in their political discourse, even if obviously we do have some fear mongering rotten apples. Case in point in the Netherlands being the fascist reactionaries that crawled from under all the rocks in the country in the wake of the discussion on whether blackface is a good idea, but I digress.
So while the findings are interesting, firstly 83 subjects is a piss in the pond and secondly the original poster is right: Is this finding universal for all the cultures we find on the globe?
Lastly, by US standards I would be a flaming liberal. There's nothing wrong with smoking a doozie, I am atheist, I think abortion isn't even worth a discussion since babies only really become sentient some 2 months after birth, obviously I am in favour of gay marriage and last but not least I think the proliferation of weapons amongst civilians (and even the army, but I digress again) is a really really silly idea.
However, I self identify as a Left Winger in terms of economic re-distribution politics, as a Constitutional Conservative when it comes to safeguarding the state of law in my country, a Conservationist in terms of the environment and indeed finally as a Liberal in terms of sexual practice and tolerance and the tolerance for people of other color. But when it comes to my atheism I am quite extremist. I think people who are god-believers are simply lesser beings and I do strive to stamp out god-belief and related silliness wherever I encounter it.
Now I wonder, given all my views and thoughts on things, whether I would be deemed a "Conservative" or "Liberal", and what selection criteria would be used for classifying me such. Because none of those were mentioned in the article.
Re:Two things. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And I've remained in the USA for the last...hmm, it's been almost forty years since I lived in Europe.
And I haven't bothered to watch the (TV) news in longer than that. I'll scan the web for headlines, but that's about it.
Amazing how much happier it's possible to be when you don't waste your time worrying about things you have no control over....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you come away with more questions than answers, it's probably good research.
Re: (Score:2)
Do we put them through a chimney, or invite them to have a cup of mushroom tea?
Or just marvel at the biological diversity that characterizes our brains, and treasure every twisted piece of it, because when cataclysms
Re: (Score:2)
Well as popular as your views may be on /. it doesn't matter in the long run. You are not breeding and will be extinct in the near future.
Re: (Score:2)
You would be a liberal politically or possibly libertarian.
As for USA sillyness regarding risk, I can make pretty similar claims about your countries. For example obsession about dangers of radiation like dangers to food safety from radiation cleaning of meat. Under your theory that this sort of risk poor assessment is unique to USA and Israel how would you explain that?
Re: (Score:2)
However, I self identify as a Left Winger in terms of economic re-distribution politics
As much as I hate litmus tests, that's pretty much the litmus test; When society can take a Man's property soley based on some arbitary definition of "fairness", society can take anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Here in the US, our infotainment industry has been in full swing for decades now convincing us to care, and care deeply and personally, about things that really don't matter in the grand scheme of things. At this point people are so goddamned confused about the state of our country and world that they consistently vote against their own best interests, and do so with pride and a sense of superiority.
Anyway, "liberal" and "conservative" seem to me entirely artificial concepts these days. The traditional (r
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Two things. (Score:4, Interesting)
Immigration is not a problem per se. Immigration of large groups not willing to conform to our local ethnics is.
I'm from north western europe. Our ethnics is largely atheist and liberal and we are under constant pressure from minorities trying to force their "sensibilities" on society. Well if they don't like our way of living, they are welcome to leave as far as I'm concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Who exactly was it that let them in? Who exactly was it that didn't screen and educate them as to what was expected (unfortunately, not required)?
Re:Immigration is not the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Go to a mosque and talk to a muslim. You might learn something.
I rather wouldn't. It might be disturbing. [wordpress.com]
I'm sorry, but the more we learn, the more we have to accept that being religious in most forms is simply being delusional in the truest sense of the word.
Re: (Score:2)
Your sig references a bible verse, so I assume you identify yourself as Christian.
Let me ask, should we use the Westboro Baptist Church as the exemplar of Christianity? No? Then why should we use that same logic for other religions?
Disclaimer: the closest thing I identify with is a deist on a good day, and an agnostic on a bad one. So please don't think that I have an interest in defending Islam, here.
Re: (Score:3)
Your sig references a bible verse, so I assume you identify yourself as Christian.
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. -Ezekiel 23:20
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like being atheistic suddenly means being a closed-minded bigot ...
Re:Immigration is not the problem. (Score:5, Informative)
According to Pew Research, Americans are 0.6% Muslim.
http://religions.pewforum.org/... [pewforum.org]
Where did you find 20%?
Re: (Score:2)
Buddhism teaches the myopic view of non attachment and to deny the ego. The fallacy of Buddhism is that you are NOT a divine nothing. There is nothing wrong in loving your spouse; in fact the exact opposite should be honored, respected, and cherished. Buddhism focuses on the false ego and ignores the true self -- which loves everything unconditionally.
Other then that, it is a wonderful system as it provides Atheists a way to understand the beginnings of God: Know Thyself
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Go to a mosque and talk to a muslim. You might learn something.
I try to avoid crazy people who believe in imaginary bullcrap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Immigration is a hotter topic in europe specifically because we have better social security.
The US has this attitude of letting everybody in and just have them take care of themselves, while many european countries actually take care of their own people.
This creates a situation when we get people into the country who were not born there but who will get social security, free health care and everything like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, if they failed to meet the necessary requirements I'd deport them so that they could die in their country of origin.
Every hospital emergency room can have a speeding ambulance ready to pick bleeding Mexicans off the ground and whisk them across the Rio Grande before they stop breathing. Problem solved!
Re: (Score:2)
Social Security is definately a factor here as well, there are something like 18 million social security accounts that have multiple people contributing to them, but will only have a single person recieving the benefits from, or at least there were back in the late '90s.
Re:Two things. (Score:5, Insightful)
Political attitudes and interest did not show a significant linear relationship [r(81)= 0.148, p= 0.182], but instead showed a U-shaped curve (FigureS1A), indicating that greater political interest is associated with polarized political attitudes.
The actual figure shows there is a fairly even distribution in terms of frequency throughout the range of political attitudes (you can see it by eye even if you don't create a histogram of the data), but the centrality of the lowest interest section along the attitudes axis needs to be explained. If you were to be correct, the range of attitudes on that axis covered by samples (removing outliers, if any), would be significantly shifted based on which country the sample group is taken from. Then either the location of the lowest interest section would not be central in the sample range for some countries (and, from experience spending time in a dozen different countries, I would bet my life against that--polarization is evident and ubiquitous), or the lowest interest section would be shifted along the attitudes axis, preserving its relative centrality for each country's data set. The latter requires a mechanism to generate it, and I'm extremely skeptical as to your ability to propose a convincing one that is based on primarily sociological considerations (biological ones are out of the question due to the relative biological uniformity across many countries with seemingly different political leanings according to your perception). I expect neither to be the case--that you are mistaken, and plots of sample groups from different nations will have far more overlap on the attitudes axis than you perceive. The range of fundamental political attitudes does not vary greatly from country to country and, as this paper implies, likely has a strong biological basis; rather, small differences are magnified by complex sociocultural mechanisms to create the biases of the overarching political landscape in each country.
Re: (Score:2)
So what would the results be if the recruits were from a more "Liberal" country?
Well, presumably, it's not the only factor. I'd imagine that these brain differences could be an additive factor that gets superimposed onto the culturally induced average.
Particularly countries where there is less focus on the items that are controversial in the USofA.?
More "liberal" (whatever that means) countries surely have either similar debates or some analogical issues. You may not have school prayer debates in France but you get debates on religious clothing in schools. Immigration is a universal issue. And you don't need to be religious to have gay marriage debates; there are many irreligious pe
No this is the second step (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This work is a long tradition of gauging support for rightwing authoritarianism. The earliest forms of the research were done in Italy. It moved to the USA because 70% of all psychology / sociology resear
Re: (Score:2)
You mean it's YAYADE*? How so?
(Yet Another Young Adult Dystopian Epic)
Well there goes the last bastion of privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how long before your thoughts will be ruled physical evidence ?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say, less than 5 years: http://www.newscientist.com/ar... [newscientist.com]
H'yup, The Parallax View (Score:2)
"Welcome to the testing room of the Parallax Corporation's Division of Human Engineering. You will now please go up to the chair, and you will sit down, make yourself comfortable, be sure to place each one of your hands on the box on either side of the chair, making sure that each one of your fingers is on one of the white rectangles. Just sit back, nothing is required of you, except to observed the visual materials that are presented to you. Be sure to keep your fingers on the box at all times. All rig
Anyone have copies of these images? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm a little curious what precisely they were showing to these people.
I mean... the images could have had political connotations that are not evident in the abstract's description.
In any case, politics are largely taught cultural traits rather then innate biological traits. So... not entirely sure where this is going.
Someone that watches more horror movies for example is going to have a higher threshold for disgust and shock probably then someone that doesn't.
I know that most men for example don't get grossed out, threatened, or shocked by things will tend to cause many women to gag, become uncomfortable, or otherwise become startled.
Then you have age and generational issues in that given ages and generations have different cultural perspectives that influence the way they respond to things.
My grandfather for example fought in WW2 but I'm pretty sure I could shock or gross him out with stuff that wouldn't really bother most of my peers.
It is a very murky issue and from what I am reading here they don't appear to have controlled for all the variables properly.
I'd want to grab college students for example because they're all pretty close to the same age. That would limit the study to some extent and control for some of the age issues. And then the images you show them really do need to be examined for subtle political connotations which really are very hard to eliminate. ... this is a stickier issue then I think the study properly appreciates. That said, glad they're having fun with the MRI machine... looks neato.
Re: (Score:2)
The article says the image that gave the only significant difference by political ideology was a mutilated body.
Re: (Score:2)
A mutilated body of whom? If I showed you a picture of mussolini hanging from a lamp post that would give you some sort of reaction. If I showed that to some other people... they might have different reactions.
I show it to old Italians for example and there are going to be different emotions happening in their heads.
The point I am making is that you really need to include some of those images... especially the key ones that showed a difference so people know what triggered it.
I also want to know if the gend
Re: (Score:2)
Photos are not in that link.
I did find something else that might be a problem as well. They're not determining political affiliation through self identification but rather through a series of questions about various issues which they then determine to be one thing or another.
That strikes me as possibly problematic as well. A self identification test would be more useful in most cases. People are complex sometimes. A lot of union democrats for example that attend church and don't like heavy immigration. Just
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure your grandfather has... and what would make you think my grandfather hasn't?
The man just gets upset at things that don't bother me. For example, he gets upset when he sees men that wear baseball caps the wrong way. Either backwards or sideways. He just doesn't like it. It pisses him off. Its kind of adorable.
Now how many people in my generation... his children's children's generation are likely to get upset by seeing someone with a baseball cap the wrong way?
For me... no real reaction. I think it i
What is this political ideology you speak of? (Score:3, Informative)
The "issues" appear to be from the American political arena, which is about as much about political ideology as World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is about sports. They're also highly polarised, in that they all come in red and blue versions with no alternative views possible, that are then conveniently grouped such that anyone leaning toward either colour in any one issue is then expected to be leaning toward matching colours in the other issues.
So what does this study tell us? I think we're seeing two cases of pervading and mutually opposed groupthink, where the patterns have become distinctive enough to be discernible -- recall that limited "thought readers" already exist. In other words, I don't see a necessity for biological predisposition here. It could be, but do note that to people used to multi-party systems (n>>2), "American politics" looks like an one-party system consisting of two factions that are only interested in duking it out with the other group, to the point of (either faction) being willing to shut down the government over some petty squabble or other. In other words, the discerning this thing does is really quite limited because the source spectrum is so poorly populated with just two possible inputs that are strongly polarised against each other to boot.
Linear political ideology? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Linear political ideology? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent down (Score:2)
thinking=consistency. feel = all over the place (Score:2)
You used the word "feel" twice to describe your positions. You didn't say "what I think" about the issues. Many people may do more thinking about the issues as opposed to feeling and thereby end up with a consistent set of thoughts. As an example, if you think that "we" should fix things and that federal government is the appropriate instrument of "we", that'll be consistent and you'll think that the federal government should do all sorts of things - you'll be a Democrat. If you think that the federal gov
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment is one notable thing where this doesn't hold true, however. On that, the parties are inconsistent with their systems of thought.
How so? From my perspective, the self-consistent Democrat view towards "fixing things" via the first Amendment would have them doing things like limiting how people can ask for redress of grievances by slow walking tax exemption applications.Or by using a state tax service as a tool to conduct a secret investigation into an opponent's donors, thus making it difficult for the opponent to get donors. Or by hassling Christians whose exercise of religion extends to providing logistical support to weddings. Or b
subpoenas for all sermons on Houston too? (Score:2)
Would that also include subpoenas of all sermons in Houston, Tx that mentioned either gay marriage or a certain city official?
I suppose you have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone would argue against their right to say it - making it not a first amendment issue - what's being argued is that they may not have the right to continue to claim the right to avoid both taxes and financial disclosure while at the same time saying what they're saying. That's very different.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one area I'd love to see some Supreme Court guidance on. The issues really stem from the fact that Churches are granted an unprecedented tax exemption (every other organization that wants to not pay taxes has to open its books for a start) in exchange for following a very small yet undefined set of rules, some of the most important being 1) claiming to be a church and 2) agreeing to stay out of politics. Risking that massive taxpayer subsidy for a violation of the staying out of politics rules seem
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that the federal government should stick to what the Constitution authorizes them to do, or that they tend to screw up, you will conclude that they shouldn't do many of the things Democrats want them to do - you'll be a Republican.
Where are these Republicans (or Democrats) that want to follow the constitution? All I see is them supporting the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, DUI checkpoints, protest permits, 'indecency' censorship, and about a million other unconstitutional policies. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly believe that either party wants to respect your freedoms or the constitution.
So... (Score:2)
People vote the way they do because of brain damage. *LOL*
Conservative: Light 'em up == simple joy (Score:2)
Because the "right" people got killed.
Liberals: Ohh my god how can people do this to other people can't they change their perspective?
Conservative: Isn't the purpose of the Red Cross to make aiming easier on the battlefield?
Voight-Kamph (Score:5, Funny)
"Is this testing whether I'm a republican or a lesbian, Mr Deckard?"
Just don't ask the subjects about their mother...
Choices define experience (Score:2)
If the differences are a level of shock, and history of exposure to similar stimuli is a predictor of level of shock, then perhaps political leanings correlate with what stimuli people choose to expose themselves to throughout their lives. For instance, liberals watching guts in medical dramas and conservatives watching love stories in family dramas.
tl;dr (Score:2)
"We proposed that conservatives, compared to liberals, have greater negativity bias, which includes both disgusting and threatening conditions in our study."
So, the more disgusted you react to disgusting photos indicates greater political conservatism.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sick of this thread and sick of all of you (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sick of this thread, and I'm sick of all of you. You're all petulant children throwing tantrums. These comments aren't even worth reading. They're all just more of the same bashing without any substance or actual discussion.
This is INTERESTING and you're all too busy throwing out tropes that any honest actor would dismiss as ad hominem attacks to actually discuss this. Conservatives react slightly stronger to disgusting images. We know this of course. This has been theorized and shown before. Of course, a more liberal person will have different areas light up too.
This means there's a very real perception filter difference happening here, and perhaps we need to extend a little empathy across the quite imaginary isle and try to TALK to one another.
No. Liberals do not want to laze around and let the government do everything for them. No. Conservatives do not want perpetual war. No. Liberals do not want other people to pay for their stuff. No. Conservatives do not blame unions and immigrants for everything. You people should KNOW these simplistic tropes are full of it, and here they are flung around as if true.
I'm liberal. My best friend is conservative. When we listen to each other, really listen instead of hearing what the TV wants us to hear from each other, we can have very nice discussions about economics and the world. We both want bankers punished for what they did. We both want the economic system to be regulated. We both want clean air and water. We both want to get the !@#$ out of the middle east. We both want to live in a country that's fair and just. Our differences are far less than our similarities.
Bah. I'm ranting.... this is interesting science and all of you completely missed it in an attempt to sling shit all over. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I suspect all they have is a machine learning algorithm that was good at predicting how 83 particular individuals felt about politics in 2014.
Good luck using the same algorithm on a different group of people, or on the same group a few years later.
Re: (Score:2)
Here we go again ... (Score:2)
"... those people who disagree with me are not just wrong, they are crazy!"
Nothing new. See "The Authoritarian Personality" (1950), a ringing 'scientific' denunciation of authoritarianism by the party that now wants to force you to bake wedding cakes for human-lobster weddings, even if you don't want to ...
Re: (Score:3)
It's strange how the bogeymen groups known as "liberals" and "conservatives" are apparently some sort of ill-defined hivemind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Obvious differences indeed - I'm guessing the conservatives' brains lit up in the areas associated with planning the work to clean up the mess, and liberals' brains in the areas with hope that the government would fix it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahh, now I understand the 6 years of political gridlock by the Republicants... they're planning to clean up the mess! That explains it all. So what decade are they going to get around to cleaning it up?
January 3rd (Score:2)
The Republicans will have control of Congress on January 3rd and get to work cleaning things up. Some of what they clean up may be mess you'd prefer to sweep under the rug, or stuff you'd rather leave alone.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here. To the world, I mean.
Re: (Score:2)
And by cleaning things up you mean a return to the great recession that they created 8 years ago?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is not the job of Congress to ensure that laws get passed. It is not the intent of our government's structure to ensure that compromises are met and new rules are enacted. It is structured so that unless there is a majority in agreement, not one god damn thing is forced upon the people.
Somehow we've lost sight of that fact, and now we measure the effectiveness of Congress on an abu
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's disputable that the US Congress is configured (by a combination of design and historical precedent) to limit legislative action. I also don't think it's disputable that this limitation is a source of stability and a mitigation for some extreme action. I even think that some extremely successful Congressional actions are evidence that this limitation is necessary (at least in context) and should be applied more thoroughly.
But it's facile to then say that a dysfunctional Congress is right o
Re: (Score:2)
If a congressman refuses to vote in favor of a thing that his or her electorate feels is critical, he will be removed upon the next election. If his electorate is so intellectually bankrupt (as oh s
Re: (Score:2)
What should be evident is that if the law doesn't pass, it really isn't that necessary and not favored heavily enough by enough people.
In fantasy, sure. In reality, there are political forces much greater than what people favor. There are countless polls, not only about particular issues where the public and the Congress are tragically out of step, but where voters say they don't think either party represents them. (Happy to provide links if you care and doubt it... I have done a ton of research on this, but I won't bother unless the conversation remains relatively engaging.) Voters simply don't have much leverage.
If a congressman refuses to vote in favor of a thing that his or her electorate feels is critical, he will be removed upon the next election.
Even in fantasy, this wou
Re: (Score:2)
You should read the paper. Conservative brains light up in areas associated with blaming immigrants, unions and Obama for the mess.
Re:are conservatives just showing more reaction? (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems very reasonable to blame those with the greatest share for wealth and power for the current state of society, rather than the impoverished and marginalized.
Though the latter position has a long heritage, stating back to the days when isolated, quirky old women were burned for being witches, somehow causing famine and pestilence despite their poverty and lack of influence.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems very reasonable to blame those with the greatest share for wealth and power for the current state of society, rather than the impoverished and marginalized.
It may seem reasonable, but it largely isn't. It is just another set of scapegoats used to rally people. They don't make the countless individual decisions that people make as to how to act in their day to day live, what values they have, and how they act on them.
The position you reference has a long and bloody heritage too. You only need to look at the Marxist revolutions that have taken place around the world leading to mass murder and the impoverishment of entire nations due to misguided values.
People
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious differences indeed - I'm guessing the REPUBLICANS's brains lit up in the areas associated with MAKING the mess, and DEMOCRATS' brains in the areas with hope that they might be able to clean it up?
FTFY. The republicans in this country aren't any more "conservative" than the democrats are "liberal". Also, an F-MRI of the current crop of republicans would show zero activity. Or at least that's the impression I get whenever I see a scientists go before a panel of congressmen. The fact that the congressmen on the SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITEE don't even understand basic concepts that most 4th graders understand tells you all you need to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, an F-MRI of the current crop of republicans would show zero activity.
That's not true. When exposed to goatse, activity in the cortical anterior fap gyrus increase by over 9000%.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You should probably say that these are aborted babies. Some people might have a high gore threshold but still might see these as triggers.
Re: (Score:2)
You should probably examine URLs on sites like this before clicking them. The first two should have set off some red flags.
Re:Truly disgusting pictures (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, you posted some really gross pictures with zero context.
Was this even in the US? If so, was this done in an actual public clinic, or someone's basement?
How about some facts, instead of pure emotional outrage.
I tried to find some info on the Sodahead.com site, but it's a complete mess and couldn't find any actual text to go with those pictures.
One thing I did find interesting on the front page was that 69% of the site's viewers voted Republican, while a whopping 57% believe that demonic possession is a r
Re: (Score:3)
Changing regulations to make oral contraceptives over the counter is not the same as forcing others to pay for them.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point was that Republicans were suddenly in favor of it because the rules were forcing them to pay for it. Unless explicitly prescribed to treat a medical condition, insurance companies don't pay for OTC medication.
As a rule, U.S. conservatives have been against birth control. The recent turn appears to be motivated by preventing them from having to pay for it, and decreasing access (by making it more expensive for the consumer), rather than wanting to increase access as you seem to assume.
Re: (Score:2)
But not birth control. The birth control pill itself costs about $8 per month without insurance paying for it. It would almost definitely come down from there if it doesn't require a prescription.
The biggest part of the cost for birth control pills is the doctor's visit required to get it
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Conservative believe people suffer because they have freely made bad life choices. People who suffer therefore do not deserve our assistance or our sympathy, as they are wholly to blame for their condition. Public policy should discourage bad choices by allowing these people to suffer the consequences of their freely chosen action. Welfare, unemployment insurance, and public healthcare are wrong, as they go against the natural order by isolating people from the consequences of their actions.
Conversely, th
Re:Concrete proof at last (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How is it a "bad life choice", say, to be born with cerebral palsy or to develop type 1 diabetes mellitus?
Well obviously their parents did something wrong, their parents also being quite poor are to blame for that situation as well.
This is sarcasm, for the sarcastically impaired (as was the GGP).
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Conservatives on the other hand, work hard to prevent any suffering from happening
Yeah, according to their own handy definitions. "We have to lynch you or send you a camp where they will make you straight, because otherwise you'd burn in the eternal hell fire, so we're really being very kind to you." It's amazing what some people can rationalize when they really put their minds to it.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It's ironic that you accuse Conservatives of wanting to send people to camps when it's the Liberals that [westernjournalism.com] actually [christianpost.com] do it. [wikipedia.org]
Re: Liberals are Egoistical Maniacs (Score:2)
Re: Liberals are Egoistical Maniacs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Liberals wants others to suffer
Screw brain images! *I* can predict a person's political leanings with >95% accuracy just by observing their grammar!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless a "pro life" person is against all killing of humans—including institutional killing (war, police shootings, death penalty)—I don't take their "pro life" claim seriously at all. Additionally, unless a "pro life" person also promotes policies which improve conditions for humans outside the womb—including promotion of good education, access to quality nutrition and healthcare—I don't take their "pro life" claim seriously at all.
Now, there are a few people who meet those criteria
Re: (Score:2)
That's a strange requirement. What if a pro-life person said they're against killing innocent people? Wouldn't that be good enough for a morally valid judgement?
Re: (Score:3)
That only proves the bias of the researchers in not including Two Girls One Cup
Re: (Score:2)
That is the point. Using how a person response, aka the subjectiveness associated by the person, they can determine the category. If it was not subjective then there would have been zero effect from the image.