The Myth of the Benevolent Left

a reply to: greencmp

Good to know. And thanks for admitting it.

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: greencmp

Good to know. And thanks for admitting it.

You're welcome, its always much easier if we don't communicate.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Should extend the ethics we would show a child, or the sick, the handicapped, to those who are not?

Like whom exactly?

a reply to: reldra

This would be a good post, if the 'benevolent left' were a myth and this were a treatise submitted to a magazine in 1850.

Ouch. I must admit that one got me.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

It's very difficult to come to a conclusion on how I stand on the OP.

Seems pretty easy to me. Refute everything by refuting nothing is the easiest course of action.

It's tough to refute the OP when it consists of statements such as these:

But if you’ve had the misfortune of holding your ear to the media, social and otherwise

It seems that the most vocal advocates of leftist policies (my personal friends among them, bless their hearts) tend to imply they are morally superior than those who lean more to the right of them.

"Seems"? "Tend to imply"?

Not taking in to account the arrogant attempt at sympathy with the "bless their hearts", it would appear that this is only opinion. Can you provide something that shows a pattern of Leftists opining on their moral superiority, or are you simply "implying"?

The claim is made even more dubious when it is further implied that merely voting for the left is itself an act of compassion

Only you seem to be implying anything like that.

If you’ve had any conversation with a thoroughgoing leftist of this sort

Logical fallacy?

Honestly, I could continue pick this OP apart for the many errors in contains in logic, but I feel it's a waste of time.

This OP is just a play on words. It's filled with words and phrases that appeal to certain individuals. yet worded differently to give it an appearance of being "different".

But it's not.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
There is an argument to be made that helping someone by giving them something they have not earned is essentially stealing. You rob them of self-sufficiency and the opportunity to learn to conquer their own problems.

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime ...

... 'cause that sorry mofo ain't never gone leave you 'lone now he know you willin' ta feed him fo'a day. That dude gon' hang out roun' da cona makin' comments to all dem ladies. Gon' drink out his bottle'o Ripple and 'lax and jive wif his fwens. Complain and make up stories about you if'n you is late bringin' supper to the table.

a reply to: Snarl

I think we can all agree that Jesus was not a marine biologist.

a reply to: introvert

"Seems"? "Tend to imply"?

Not taking in to account the arrogant attempt at sympathy with the "bless their hearts", it would appear that this is only opinion. Can you provide something that shows a pattern of Leftists opining on their moral superiority, or are you simply "implying"?

Hey if the post isn't about you, it isn't about you. But given that it touched your ideological nerve, I'll take that as a sign of something, at least.

I've done my homework. But you can dismiss it outright if that's what you want.

Honestly, I could continue pick this OP apart for the many errors in contains in logic, but I feel it's a waste of time.

This OP is just a play on words. It's filled with words and phrases that appeal to certain individuals. yet worded differently to give it an appearance of being "different".

Ahh a literary, psychological and linguistic criticism all rolled into one. Perhaps its a good thing I don't value your opinion.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Hey if the post isn't about you, it isn't about you. But given that it touched your ideological nerve, I'll take that as a sign of something, at least.

What does my comment have to do with ideology? I just pointed out that what you did was attempt to convey superiority while damning the Left for your perceived notion they feel superior.

It's quite humorous, actually.

I've done my homework. But you can dismiss it outright if that's what you want.

Did you not just dismiss my last comment with irrelevance?

Perhaps its a good thing I don't value your opinion.

Personal attacks?

Really?

We just started this conversation. Why fail so soon?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

But there is a valid point to be made.

I've often been told that I am uncaring, simply because I don't adhere to a specific ideology.

Without even knowing what I've done or what I do, I have been labeled as uncaring and selfish. Simply based on ideology.

Therefore, I felt the OP had merit.

Do you not realise the OP is doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing?

How you find merit in something that is using the same tactics as those you oppose is beyond me.

Calling a program "Welfare" is kind of loading the dice. The "Welfare" program is a reputed method of solving a problem, whether it actually helps people live happier healthier lives and improves their welfare is dubious.

Since "Welfare" the poverty rate has gone up and the economy has gone down. By the logic of leftist studies that alone proves Welfare to be a failure.

Being against the Welfare philosophy is not the same as being against the welfare of every stranger. Leftist possession of the terminology id Orwellian.

a reply to: introvert

Surely you are aware that this is LesMis MO in almost every post he makes?

a reply to: introvert

It's quite humorous, actually.

I am here for your entertainment.

Convey superiority? I never said I was better than anyone else. If you think I am superior, thank you for that I suppose.

Nor did I damn the left. I only argued that the left is not morally superior to the right.

originally posted by: Esoterotica
a reply to: introvert

Surely you are aware that this is LesMis MO in almost every post he makes?

Yes, I know.

It's fun to come in, after the OP's hubris has been fed, and pick apart the obvious inconsistencies.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

It's quite humorous, actually.

I am here for your entertainment.

Convey superiority? I never said I was better than anyone else. If you think I am superior, thank you for that I suppose.

Nor did I damn the left. I only argued that the left is not morally superior to the right.

The Left is not morally superior, but you tried to use a logical fallacy to convey the idea that they believe themselves to be so.

It seems that the most vocal advocates of leftist policies (my personal friends among them, bless their hearts) tend to imply they are morally superior than those who lean more to the right of them

Pretty "damning", isn't it?

Or perhaps you meant something else?

The Left is not morally superior, but you tried to use a logical fallacy to convey the idea that they believe themselves to be so.

Yes, it is a known phenomenon. There are books and articles written on the subject.

How is it a logical fallacy? Because you never mentioned that part in your "picking apart". This was before your, straw men of course.

Pretty "damning", isn't it?

Or perhaps you meant something else?

No, I meant exactly what I said.




a reply to: introvert

Who "cares" more?

The ideology that doesn't think that people can survive without government?

Or the ideology that people can survive just fine on their own without government?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes, it is a known phenomenon

Sources? The scientific kind, if you don't mind.

There are books and articles written on the subject

Please share. Please omit Glenn Beck and nutter websites, if you can.

No, I meant exactly what I said.

As I feared.

You are denouncing arrogance and superiority while exhibiting arrogance and superiority.

Hypocrite?

originally posted by: Willtell
Bill O'Reilly says poverty hasn't budged since 1965 despite 'trillions' spent

www.politifact.com...

As usual, of course he was proven wrong.

• The poverty rate has fallen even further if you start counting a few years before the Great Society began. Between 1959 and 1962, the poverty rate ranged between 20 and 22 percent. If you compare that level to 2009, poverty declined by an even steeper rate -- by more than one-third.

• Poverty among the elderly has plummeted. In 1967, about 30 percent of seniors were below the poverty line. That was down to 13.2 percent by 2008 -- a reduction by more than half.

One of Johnson’s greatest legislative achievements -- Medicare, the federal health care program for those 65 years and over -- helped lower elderly poverty, as did Social Security, a program that started under President Franklin D. Roosevelt but which Johnson enhanced with legislation in 1965 and 1967. A subsequent law enacted in 1973 began automatic, annual cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security beneficiaries. To the extent that Medicaid also helps poor older Americans, that has helped as well.

• Certain subgroups have seen steep drops in poverty over the same period. Poverty among blacks was 55 percent in 1959 and 41 percent in 1966. By 2009, the rate had fallen to 25.9 percent. For black single moms without a father present, the poverty rate fell from 70.6 percent in 1959 and 65.3 in 1966 to 39.8 percent in 2009.

• Alternate measurements of poverty show even steeper declines than the official statistics. A number of statisticians led by Douglas Besharov -- a University of Maryland scholar previously with the conservative American Enterprise Institute -- have come up with a more detailed measure of poverty that they say is more accurate than the official government statistic. Their alternative statistic includes factors ignored in the official statistics but which help poor Americans make it from day to day.

So left wing programs have worked...certainly not enough but they have substantially assisted in lowering poverty of Americans.

The poverty rate was falling until Welfare, leaving the gold standard, and spending on war started the inflation.



files.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: introvert

This isn't a scientific paper, in case you haven't noticed.

I'll leave the fact-checking up to you friend.

You are denouncing arrogance and superiority while exhibiting arrogance and superiority.

By sitting at my desk and typing? Such arrogance.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Willtell
Bill O'Reilly says poverty hasn't budged since 1965 despite 'trillions' spent

www.politifact.com...

As usual, of course he was proven wrong.

• The poverty rate has fallen even further if you start counting a few years before the Great Society began. Between 1959 and 1962, the poverty rate ranged between 20 and 22 percent. If you compare that level to 2009, poverty declined by an even steeper rate -- by more than one-third.

• Poverty among the elderly has plummeted. In 1967, about 30 percent of seniors were below the poverty line. That was down to 13.2 percent by 2008 -- a reduction by more than half.

One of Johnson’s greatest legislative achievements -- Medicare, the federal health care program for those 65 years and over -- helped lower elderly poverty, as did Social Security, a program that started under President Franklin D. Roosevelt but which Johnson enhanced with legislation in 1965 and 1967. A subsequent law enacted in 1973 began automatic, annual cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security beneficiaries. To the extent that Medicaid also helps poor older Americans, that has helped as well.

• Certain subgroups have seen steep drops in poverty over the same period. Poverty among blacks was 55 percent in 1959 and 41 percent in 1966. By 2009, the rate had fallen to 25.9 percent. For black single moms without a father present, the poverty rate fell from 70.6 percent in 1959 and 65.3 in 1966 to 39.8 percent in 2009.

• Alternate measurements of poverty show even steeper declines than the official statistics. A number of statisticians led by Douglas Besharov -- a University of Maryland scholar previously with the conservative American Enterprise Institute -- have come up with a more detailed measure of poverty that they say is more accurate than the official government statistic. Their alternative statistic includes factors ignored in the official statistics but which help poor Americans make it from day to day.

So left wing programs have worked...certainly not enough but they have substantially assisted in lowering poverty of Americans.

The poverty rate was falling until Welfare, leaving the gold standard, and spending on war started the inflation.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

The other thing I'll add here is that the definition of 'poverty' as a term continues to evolve.

"When in the ages preceding the rise of modern capitalism statesmen, philosophers, and lawyers referred to the poor and to the problems of poverty, they meant these supernumerary wretches. Laissez faire and its off-shoot, industrialism, converted the employable poor into wage earners. In the unhampered market society there are people with higher and people with lower incomes. There are no longer men, who, although able and ready to work, cannot find regular jobs because there is no room left for them in the social system of production. But liberalism and capitalism were even in their heyday limited to comparatively small areas of Western and Central Europe, North America, and Australia. In the rest of the world hundreds of millions still vegetate on the verge of starvation. They are poor or paupers in the old sense of the term, supernumerary and superfluous, a burden to themselves and a latent threat to the minority of their more lucky fellow citizens."

-Ludwig von Mises