Current Events > Why are conservatives considerably more charitable then liberals?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34429211/#:~:text=Our%20meta%2Danalysis%20results%20suggest,giving%20varies%20under%20different%20scenarios.

When it comes to helping those in need conservatives are more willing and more active than liberals, from monetary donation to active roles like volunteer fire fighters, community food drives and even fostering at need children.
The political ideology of left would lead people to believe they are altruistic but statistically altruism in action is almost entirely conservative.

Why don't the left actually make constructive progress towards their goals? as opposed to constantly observed destructive actions like violent riots, doxxing/attacks on individuals and small business and cancel culture.

They're not

Irony posted...

They're not

You only have to google "Left or right more charitable?", I even linked the top article so you don't even have too.

Why are conservatives considerably more likely to not know the proper usage of "then" and "than"?

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

Why are conservatives considerably more likely to not know the proper usage of "then" and "than"?

I realised I did that immediately and assumed correctly that would be the first and likely only thing leftists bring to this conversation.

Jesserae posted...

statistically altruism in action is almost entirely conservative.

That's very blatantly not what the article you posted says.

My guess would be that more conservatives have the means to help, and tend to have their morals tied into religious beliefs.

COVxy posted...

That's very blatantly not what the article you posted says.

Following scientific data collection and coding procedures, we identify 421 effect sizes from 31 empirical studies. Our meta-analysis results suggest that political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals at an overall level

Significantly, almost entirely, tomayto tomahto.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/3/3/AAYLmLAADOjR.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/3/4/AAYLmLAADOjS.jpg

Pay special attention to the income status.
If most liberals are single and poor and the majority of conservatives are married and financially stable then...

Jesserae posted...

Following scientific data collection and coding procedures, we identify 421 effect sizes from 31 empirical studies. Our meta-analysis results suggest that political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals at an overall level

Except significant doesn't mean what you're trying to suggest it does, and you cut off the portion of the abstract that directly contradicts what you say.

Like, the overall mean is slightly biased towards conservatives, but it's not strong, and that bias almost entirely depends on structures of organized religion and individual wealth.

Jesserae posted...

Significantly, almost entirely, tomayto tomahto.

Very much no.

DocDelicious posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/3/3/AAYLmLAADOjR.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/3/4/AAYLmLAADOjS.jpg

Pay special attention to the income status.

So not only do conservatives have a better work ethic, they are also more likely to improve the lives of people around them with fruits of their labour.

What we have here is a troll topic

COVxy posted...

Except significant doesn't mean what you're trying to suggest it does, and you cut off the portion of the abstract that directly contradicts what you say.

Like, the overall mean is slightly biased towards conservatives, but it's not strong, and that bias almost entirely depends on structures of organized religion and individual wealth.

Significant doesn't mean significant?.
How do you account for a conservative majority in active volunteer roles like fire fighters?

Jesserae posted...

Significant doesn't mean significant?.

It's a statistical term to mean "crossed a decision threshold". Has no implication for the size or importancd of an effect.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Higher incomes and more charitable, where is the trolling exactly?

I mean, dude, you're not fooling anyone, you are clearly trolling.

Tbh, with as much tax that's taken out, that's my charitable giving

COVxy posted...

It's a statistical term to mean "crossed a decision threshold". Has no implication for the size or importancd of an effect.

That's not how it's being used, "conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals", it's really that simple, significantly is referring the greater participation of conservatives in charitable acts.

Because those idiots keeps giving money to churches that dont even need the money

Jesserae posted...

I realised I did that immediately and assumed correctly that would be the first and likely only thing leftists bring to this conversation.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/015/352/Screen_Shot_2021-02-17_at_2.52.46_PM.jpg

Jesserae posted...

That's not how it's being used, "conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals", it's really that simple, significantly is referring to the greater participation of conservatives in charitable acts.

Leftist charitable acts can hardly even be considered such seeing as bail funds that free murderers are technically charity's.

Only a moron would believe you.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You think creation is cheap? materials, labour, transport, the man needs it.

Does tithing count? Bc it shouldn't

Jesserae posted...

You only have to google "Left or right more charitable?", I even linked the top article so you don't even have too.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/4/0/AAH8t1AADOjY.jpg

COVxy posted...

Only a moron would believe you.

Only someone being deliberately disingenuous or suffering a severe case of cognitive dissonance would try to interpret significantly as such,

Significantly
adverb
in a sufficiently great or important way as to be worthy of attention.
"energy bills have increased significantly this year"

That certainly means "crossed a decision threshold" and not that bill had increased by a large amount.

charity is a way for wealthy people to get tax cuts and launder their reputation. nothing more. nothing less.

Devilanse333 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/4/0/AAH8t1AADOjY.jpg

I linked a scientific article, I guess it's not research when the results damage the leftist narrative.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Exactly, why do leftist argue in bad faith all the time?, changing language and pretending their alternate meaning was the intention?

In general the American habit of sticking a temporary band-aid on social ills by banking on the occasional gregarious acts of charity by well-off people is really bizarre

pinky0926 posted...

In general the American habit of sticking a temporary band-aid on social ills by banking on the occasional gregarious acts of charity by well-off people is really bizarre

The charitable acts of conservatives go far beyond financial, Foster carers, volunteer firefighters, blood donators, all overwhelmingly conservative.

Jesserae posted...

The charitable acts of conservative go far beyond financial, Foster carers, volunteer firefighters, blood donators, all overwhelmingly conservative.

You'll notice I didn't say conservative at all in my post

Is this your first scientific paper? Significant means what the other posters are saying. For example, finding that a medicine helps 5% of people more than another medicine would be said to be significant. Even if that means it went from helping 60% of people to 63% of people

pinky0926 posted...

You'll notice I didn't say conservative at all in my post

And I'm just pointing out conservative Americans do far more than apply temporary band aids, they take care of abused children, literally walk through flames, give the literal life blood in their veins so another might live.

ThyCorndog posted...

Is this your first scientific paper? Significant means what the other posters are saying. For example, finding that a medicine helps 5% of people more than another medicine would be said to be significant. Even if that means it went from helping 60% of people to 63% of people

A religious person is 57% more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person.
Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households.
If liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%.

These aren't 5% figures, they are significant in the literal term.

Jesserae posted...

Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households.

You know this means that for every dollar a liberal gives, a conservative gives a dollar and 30 cents, right? That's significant, but it's not overwhelming and whatever other hyperbolic language you're using

Jesserae posted...

And I'm just pointing out conservative Americans do far more than apply temporary band aids, they take care of abused children, literally walk through flames, give the literal life blood in their veins so another might live.

Curious behaviour when they actively and aggressively lobby to gut the programs that do a much better job of all of these things.

But you do you I guess. I'm just glad that I live in a country where social care provided the medical equipment required to keep my father alive, rather than waiting patiently for a billionaire to donate one to me on a whim.

Those tax benefits

ThyCorndog posted...

You know this means that for every dollar a liberal gives, a conservative gives a dollar and 30 cents, right? That's significant, but it's not overwhelming and whatever other hyperbolic language you're using

And yet the leftists narrative is conservatives are vile greedy monsters, the evidence shows conservatives are doing far more to improve the lives of the people around them than liberals, going far beyond financial, actually giving their homes, lives and blood to those in need.