Bazz, well said.I too have seen the article and it beggars belief that a mentally ill person can hold the various institutions, (govt or private) to ransom. I expect leaders to lead and not cow-tow to these sick and twisted 'IT'S'. It's as if the world is being taken over by zombies, in that reason and common sense are a thing for the 'oldies' and therefore not progressive enough for this bold new generation of 'IT'S'. I am reminded of 'The Adams Family' and cousin 'It'. I think that's a reasonable analogy.

Hi Foxy and Shadow,

<<From what we can see progressive brains are less fearful than conservative brains, but also perhaps less rational, less mature and more violent.>>

Not so Shadow, conservatives through their position of wealth and privilege, tend to have a greater dominance, and therefore a greater say in society. The only violence a conservative considers is the illegal kind, such as perpetrated by this nutter in Tasmania.
There is also the state sanctioned forms of violence, police action, military intervention, etc. The conservatives totally discount those forms of violence with the justification, "it's legal". It is only legal to the point that the conservatives had the dominant say in formulating the laws which made it legal in the first place. A good example of conservatives enforcing state sanctioned violence was the apartheid laws, and the way they were brutally applied in South Africa. A small minority of conservatives through their position of wealth and privilege, which also gave them power, made laws which favoured themselves over the majority, they also had the means to violently enforce those laws, a well armed, well trained, paramilitary police force. What I will agree with is most conservatives tend not to involve themselves in violent acts directly, rather they rely on a police or military force to do it for them. The police and military personnel are also mostly conservatives.

If acting with violence in self interest is considered rational and mature, then I would have to agree with your statement.

What 'progressive' brains would those be? Show the research and the specific findings.

The problem here is that 'Useful Idiots' the faux leftist political elite are feeding manure cannot discriminate between liberal and 'progressive'.

As for 'Progressives', that is another kettle of fish. There are as many variants as there are self-proclaimed 'Progressives' and many are 'Trots', or avowed international socialists (eg Labor leader Shorten), explain that.

'Progressive' is being employed as just a cloak, a convenient camouflage and often with self interest in mind. What is underneath can be all manner of conflicting beliefs. Anything from totalitarian Greens 'Eastern Bloc' and very selective bigotry such as hatred of 'white men' (quick, diversify them out of existence) and radical feminist fear and disgust of 'traditional' marriage, through to anarchists.

Come to think of it, if Shorten and ors, the treacherous Greens as well, say they are all 'Progressives' why not form a party, define and post the progressive policies and get a mandate from the electorate? No, they are all leafing through those glossy tour guides (Xmas break pending, but avoid flights near Nth Korea), while wasting Parliament's time on SSM.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for that.

There are topics where progressives and conservatives
will never see eye to eye. It would be great however
if as Tiernan Brady has pointed out - if opposing sides
can try to cultivate mutual respect.

I came across an article in Scientific American recently.
It's an older article but quite relevant today. I'll quote
just a bit from it (due to the 350 word limit) that I feel
might be useful to this discussion. I will use the word
"Progressive" instead of "Liberal" because in the US
"Liberal" does mean "Progressive."

Here goes:

"Although conservatives and progressives are fundamentally
different there are hints emerging about how to bring them
together - or at least help them coexist."

"In his recent book, The Righteous Mind," psychologist
Jonathan Haidt of the New York University (NYU) Stern School
of Business argues that progressives and conservatives need
not revile one another as immoral on issues such as birth
control, gay marriage, or health care reform."

"Even if these two world views clash, Haidt has a message for
both sides. He wants the left to acknowledge that the right's
emphasis on law, institutions, customs and religion is
valuable. Conservatives recognise that democracy is a huge
achievement and that maintaining the social order requires
imposing constraints on people. Progressive values on the other
hand, also serve important roles: ensuring that the rights of
weaker members of society are respected, limiting harmful effects,
such as pollution, that corporations sometimes pass on to
others; and fostering innovation by supporting diverse ideas and
ways of life."

"Haidt is not out to change people's deepest moral beliefs.
Yet he thinks that if people could see that those they disagree
with are not immoral but simply emphasizing different moral
principles, some of the antagonism would subside."

"It's yin and yang. Both sides see different threats; both
sides are wise in different values."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

Readers should critically examine what Foxy has just done, substituting her own words for those used by the original author and still presenting the passage as a quote with the link.

Foxy has explained what she has done and
why she did it. She cannot be held
responsible for those who are lacking in
comprehension skills or who are deliberately
out to attack and stir. Foxy's message is
one of respect unlike the other poster -
whose post speaks for itself.