despite what they profess; conservatives ARE that wrong

recently I watched a fairly impressive TED Talk by Jonathan Haidt. it provided much needed insight to progressives. it made the declaration that humans commit only so much to the professed goals of trust, fairness and justice. if the progressive system were wholly committed to, we would experience vast twists in actions of truthfulness. the trust games presented in the talk show that if given the opportunity to punish were given, in addition to trust, the participants suddenly started "behaving themselves" even more than trust alone. it turned to describe that conservatives only wanted the world to be better so they desired to bypass the unreliability of trust or justice and jump right to the punishment. supposedly just to get people to BE nice through the introduction of fear.

but my arguments still stand. IT is not about making people behave. it is about Quality of Life. hands-fucking-down, Quality of Life WILL be better under progressive trust than it will be under conservative punishment —albeit sometimes we will lie to one another. it is still way-fucking-better than living in fear. what is a better argument to make.

the argument for conservative tradition / punishment: dont eat pork or shellfish for they are unclean and god(s) will punish you through disease and pain and death.

the argument for progressive knowledge: dont eat pork or shellfish that is undercooked. because sometimes they live with parasites that are incompatible with our own biology. still they are safe to eat when stored and cooked properly.

notice how one tries to scare you into behaving through fear and the other just tells you what the fuck is up? both aim towards the same goal of helping people live a higher Quality of Life but one aims for freedom from fear. THAT is why we cant get along. THAT is why we wont get along. THAT is why I can appreciate the good intentions of conservatives AND I despise the methods of conservatives. progressives have intentions for and employ methods of Quality of Life. conservatives have good intentions (for some) but employ fucking-hideous methods*.

* WTF?...
 - creating an unequal society against women to "protect" women from the wretchedness of man
 - enslaving "savage" man to save the "savage" from his own "savagery". making them BE better through service to a master which is somehow more "godly" 
 - punishing dissent to prevent dissent
 - killing doctors to prevent abortions
 - blowing up clinics to prevent abortions
 - forcing prayer in school to instill fear of a god to install control of all children
 - using capital punishment not to prevent crime but using the fear of execution to prevent crime
 - endless examples of fear and hatred disguised as for the better of society...

corporate personhood

I think I can settle this debate once and for all (how modest of me /s). so many people for so many years have been arguing back and forth on behalf of human rights for corporations. why do we have to argue if these rights are human rights? can they not just be rights granted in mere legal terms on paper? human rights are unalienable. granted rights are just bargained legal terms. corporations only exist as bargained legal terms; humans exist regardless of legal jargon. clearly corporations are simple bargained rights, not unalienable rights —perhaps we can just call them rules. to call into question the personhood of a corporation is a slippery slope, a premeditated effort to twist, bypass or usurp logic that would otherwise limit wealth accumulation/hoarding. the goal is clear: the property —or tool— known as a corporation is designed to accumulate wealth for its owners. giving the owners more leverage —in every possible way. the most popular example in current media is corporations exercising freedom of speech (as if corporations distribute dialog not directly from the owners themselves or coerced employees afraid to lose their jobs). property cannot be used give a person's freedom of speech duplicity. the rule has always been: one person one vote. a corporation is not a stake holder; it is actually a stake to be held. their existence is that of property. a corporation is, by its very definition, property.
it can be bargained that property can own other property but is, in and of itself, always owned. the property owned by that corporation, by transitive rules, is owned within that same hierarchy of ownership; the roots always go back to some flesh and blood human (regardless how dead their soul is). in fact, nothing about a corporation can ever be free from ownership. in my opinion that is in antithesis of what a person is.

the deliberate purpose to gain corporate personhood is wealth accumulation/hoarding. if that is its stated goal then we have the rights as actual persons to deny that, bargained, granted "right". the purpose of gaining corporate personhood is not a matter of fighting persecution or some lofty social good that would be achieved; it is simple greed. anyone fighting for the rights to hoard excessive wealth should fight an uphill battle. that said, we have the right —I would say the obligation— to resist them.

I can use analogies of past slavery or current pet ownership but I feel these arguments hold up well on their own. I request constructive dialog on the matter. if there are holes in my logic, I welcome reasonable criticism.