It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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: 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
Personally, having lived in great poverty, I think it is absurd to even suggest that anyone embrace poverty as noble. Have you ever gone hungry? Had to go to bed at night without having eaten that day, either as a child, or as a parent, listening to the whimpering of your hungry child??
No, I don't feel an equal amount of compassion for a rich person- who is not hungry, is not cold.
As expected, Les Mis.
I give you credit. While you tried to point fingers at the Left for being X, Y and Z, you exhibited those very faults yourself. I assume you caught that, but perhaps you did not.
What the OP boils-down to is a long-winded irrelevant rant that uses a higher level of language to trash talk.
Absolutely no substance and when asked to provide some, the burden is shoved on to the shoulders of the reader.
Absolutely no substance and when asked to provide some, the burden is shoved on to the shoulders of the reader.
How is giving money to a charity that is likely far less efficiently putting that money to use somehow the better alternative?
In this study, we focused on the moral values of ideological opponents, and their perceptions of the moral values of either side, in order to understand the moral “distrust and animosity” endemic to the liberal-conservative culture war. We found that there are real moral differences between liberals and conservatives, but people across the political spectrum exaggerate the magnitude of these differences and in so doing create opposing moral stereotypes that are shared by all. Calling attention to this unique form of stereotyping, and to the fact that liberal and conservative moral values are less polarized than most people think, could be effective ways of reducing the distrust and animosity of current ideological divisions.
Thanks for the links. It's important to learn where people inform themselves and these links provided show the disingenuous nature of the OP, and your overall mindset.
The book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, shows us that there is very little difference between the charitable givings of Liberals and Conservatives, except when it comes to religion. The so-called superiority of "generosity" by the Conservatives comes in the form of tithing to churches.
It is also disingenuous to consider religious contribution to be completely "voluntary" because the faithful are compelled by their faith to tithe an amount predetermined in their religious texts.
This was not a study on morality. It was a study of political stereotypes. How can this study be used as an indicator of actual morality when it only studied the perceptions of morality based on politically ideological lines?
Anyway, very disingenuous Les Mis. All you have shown is that the OP does exactly what was described in the stereotype study, in that it "exaggerates the magnitude of these differences and in so doing create opposing moral stereotypes that are shared by all".
"Any more straw men?"
Aside from the OP? Honestly, that's the best belly-laugh I have had in several days.
This "magnum opus" is nothing more than a series of simplistic, dare we say jingoistic, straw-arguments that the OP then knocks down with more partisan rhetoric keyed to the exact dog-whistle frequencies that has produced so many predictable "hear hears" from the ATS right-wing.
Paying the use-fee to attend the religious club of one's choice is hardly "charity" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Most of the rest is merely "the same ol' same ol'" regurgitated in every post pretending to objectively analyze the differences in the American Left and Right here.
I had come to expect better of the OP.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Right on cue, Gryphon. Just when I thought this thread was lacking pure and utter sophistry.