What's new
By:

Conservatives refuse to be energy efficient

I'm the same way with organic food. I'll pick something up and start putting it in my cart but then notice it says "100% organic" and I take a second hard look and wonder if there's another item I might prefer to the organic one I have. Partly it's because I've paid a premium for stuff labeled organic only to be very disappointed in the product, so I associate organic with paying a premium price for sub-standard products. Maybe it's a similar situation with energy efficient items. If you've had a few that cost more and didn't work as well as their non-energy efficient counterparts you may start having a negative reaction to the label.
 
It's because they think of liberals with they thinking of conservation and being environmentally friendly. I went to a guest speaker thing where this former senator, who is a republican, was talking about how his fellow Republicans are scared of supporting stuff like this because it will make them seem liberal.
 
I didn't want to pay to read the article but this below suggests the energy efficient one is more expensive:

Study 1 demonstrated that more politically conservative individuals were less in favor of investment in energy-efficient technology than were those who were more politically liberal.
Click to expand...

Similarly with organic products, if it costs more but is not giving me the added benefit, then I'd go with non-organic...
 
Gameface said:
I'm the same way with organic food. I'll pick something up and start putting it in my cart but then notice it says "100% organic" and I take a second hard look and wonder if there's another item I might prefer to the organic one I have. Partly it's because I've paid a premium for stuff labeled organic only to be very disappointed in the product, so I associate organic with paying a premium price for sub-standard products. Maybe it's a similar situation with energy efficient items. If you've had a few that cost more and didn't work as well as their non-energy efficient counterparts you may start having a negative reaction to the label.
Click to expand...
I'm in the middle. A few things definitely make sense to go organic. With other items it makes absolutely no difference and you're paying a HUGE premium for little to no benefit.
 
Because conservatives are on average poorer than nonconservatives so have less money to invest in environmentally beneficial technology????

There is a book called "Who really Cares" and it shows that despite being the poorest conservatives (especially religious conservatives) give the most amount of money to charity while liberals (especially nonreligious liberals) give the least amount of money to charity.
 
The Black Swordsman said:
Because conservatives are on average poorer than nonconservatives so have less money to invest in environmentally beneficial technology????

There is a book called "Who really Cares" and it shows that despite being the poorest conservatives (especially religious conservatives) give the most amount of money to charity while liberals (especially nonreligious liberals) give the least amount of money to charity.
Click to expand...

Well there you go, we conservatives spend all our monies on charity, making sure under privileged kids in remote areas are being fed. No money left after that for all the organic/energy saving techie stuff.

We're poorer in the pocket - but we feel richer inside :)
 
Hotttnickkk said:
Well there you go, we conservatives spend all our monies on charity, making sure under privileged kids in remote areas are being fed. No money left after that for all the organic/energy saving techie stuff.

We're poorer in the pocket - but we feel richer inside :)
Click to expand...

Charities that are not forced for you to invest in to be a member of your church are a little different.

Plus this is saying conservatives dont buy something that cost the exact same amount of money but uses less energy, that is just common sense not more or less money to spend.
 
Broncster said:
Charities that are not forced for you to invest in to be a member of your church are a little different.

Plus this is saying conservatives dont buy something that cost the exact same amount of money but uses less energy, that is just common sense not more or less money to spend.
Click to expand...

The book says that religious conservatives give more to secular charities as well opposed to nonreligious liberals.

Also this:

The Index of Global Philanthropy, 2007 states: “Religious people are more charitable than non-religious not only in giving to their own congregations, but also – regardless of income, region, social class, and other demographic variables – significantly more charitable in their secular donations and informal giving.”
 
The Black Swordsman said:
The book says that religious conservatives give more to secular charities as well opposed to nonreligious liberals.

Also this:

The Index of Global Philanthropy, 2007 states: “Religious people are more charitable than non-religious not only in giving to their own congregations, but also – regardless of income, region, social class, and other demographic variables – significantly more charitable in their secular donations and informal giving.”
Click to expand...

hmm that is very interesting, after reading through the article I dont believe that they separated donations given to their church and given to other organizations.

https://www.hudson.org/files/publications/IndexGlobalPhilanthropy2007.pdf

Here is an interesting article that gives some more stats that show the picture is not cut and dry. For example non-religious doctors chose to work with poor more than religious ones.
There is also the problem with self reported numbers in that religious people claim to give more to charity than they do.
Also in studies that see how people react studies dont show differences.

https://secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=generous_atheists

Further in the US when you take religious donations out of the equation the states who are on the bottom for donations like pennsylvania and new york jump to number 4 and 2 respectively and those are very low religious states.

I stick to what I said (at least in the USA) that when you take religious donations out (which generally are required/expected to maintain membership) there is not a difference between secular and religious peoples donation.
 
Broncster said:
hmm that is very interesting, after reading through the article I dont believe that they separated donations given to their church and given to other organizations.

https://www.hudson.org/files/publications/IndexGlobalPhilanthropy2007.pdf

Here is an interesting article that gives some more stats that show the picture is not cut and dry. For example non-religious doctors chose to work with poor more than religious ones.
There is also the problem with self reported numbers in that religious people claim to give more to charity than they do.
Also in studies that see how people react studies dont show differences.

https://secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=generous_atheists

Further in the US when you take religious donations out of the equation the states who are on the bottom for donations like pennsylvania and new york jump to number 4 and 2 respectively and those are very low religious states.

I stick to what I said (at least in the USA) that when you take religious donations out (which generally are required/expected to maintain membership) there is not a difference between secular and religious peoples donation.
Click to expand...

LOL.. of course if you take the religious ones out, the others would jump up. What else would you expect to happen?

There's only so much $ to go around. You wouldn't expect me to support 2 childs through World Vision as well as another 2 through Unicef, would you?

The point is, without the religious ones, charity would be pretty low across the board, no?
 
Broncster said:
Further in the US when you take religious donations out of the equation the states who are on the bottom for donations like pennsylvania and new york jump to number 4 and 2 respectively and those are very low religious states.

I stick to what I said (at least in the USA) that when you take religious donations out (which generally are required/expected to maintain membership) there is not a difference between secular and religious peoples donation.
Click to expand...
Why do we need to take religious donations out? While it's true that donations go towards funding that religious operation, you can easily obtain records detailing the % going towards operations and salaries and the percentage distributed to those the charity serves. As I've examined some of the charities I give to, I've seen some alarming salaries paid to execs by "non-profits." And a good percentage of donations being used for marketing to get more donations. On the religious side, churches dole out monies and goods to everyone in the communities and countries they help, regardless of religious affiliation. Whether it's the Catholic Charities, Salvation Army or LDS Welfare, "religious" charities do not just serve their own. Nor are charitable contributions required/expected to MAINTAIN membership. I've seen the plate passed around at many masses and don't ever recall them taking down names. Nor has my membership ever been in jeopardy when I have not given tithing or fast offerings to the LDS Church.
 
Charity?

t1home_2105_tammy_faye_gi.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top