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.

 

The Myth of the Benevolent Left

page: 8
78
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Methinks someone misses out that our state schools, the big unis, are already public schools run by tax dollars, and that the standards there for admission are low enough that pretty much all it takes for admission is a high school diploma from an accredited high school and a half-@ssed attempt at one of the big entrance exams.




posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Once again, the conservatives are uncaring and the leftists care and are better because they say they care.

I don't think anyone here wanted to starve the hungry or make people homeless.

But there is a difference between feeding a hungry person and "talking online about feeding a hungry person".

In the former, a hungry person is fed, in the latter, only the ego of the blogger is fed.

And maybe that's where there is a problem. So many are just satisfying their own ego and not seeing to the needs of anyone else, it's like a form of masturbation. Where only the individual involved gets satisfaction.

The hungry stay hungry.
The homeless stay homeless.

But the blogger is satisfied because he/she typed that they cared and that those who don't share their ideology are uncaring.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   

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.


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.




posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   

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


All these quotes, cliche, and analogies are subjective.

As long as there are fish to catch; the waters not polluted and the fish are edible.
edit on 23-2-2016 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I have donated food, money and time. But it isn't enough. Plenty of people, on both sides of the political spectrum, have done the same. It still isn't enough.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that the liberals admit it's not enough and that we need something on a larger scale. The conservatives refuse to admit that it's not enough and are against doing something on a larger scale.

I'm not talking about just hand-outs. I'm also talking about mentoring programs, educational programs, training programs - but all those programs cost money, and I don't have enough of my own money to pay for all that. But if we all put money together, it could make a difference.

It's not just about being kind and compassionate towards others either. A society with less poverty will be a stronger society for everyone - less crime, less spreading of disease, less unwanted pregnancies/less abortions, etc.
A society with less poverty is a society with a stronger economy, a more powerful society. Do you disagree with this?



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

I agree that a stronger society is a better one.

But I see government programs perpetuating the class divisions, not eliminating them.

Doing something for someone else does not equate to political ideology.
Talking about doing something for someone else is not the same as actually doing something for someone else.
Promoting that government do something instead of actually doing something is an abdication of responsibility.

And only serves those in power. It does not benefit those that actually need it.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
The leftist establishment preys on those who are emotional and compassionate to achieve their totalitarian goals.
edit on 23-2-2016 by DeadAgain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma


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.


Except for the child part, yes I've been poor, homeless, without food. Now I'm sitting pretty by the sweat of my own brow, no handouts, and not still stuck to the state IV. What now?

Jesus, Buddha, Socrates, Diogenes, Nietzsche—all absurd men.

"He who possesses little, is little possessed."



edit on 23-2-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert



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.



Here's the paper:

The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives

Here's a book:

Who really cares?

Enjoy. Let me know when you've finished them and we can have that discussion.




Absolutely no substance and when asked to provide some, the burden is shoved on to the shoulders of the reader.


Disguising an appeal to authority as a desire for "substance".

edit on 23-2-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Thanks for the good critique.



How is giving money to a charity that is likely far less efficiently putting that money to use somehow the better alternative?


It is voluntary. Therefor it is more moral.

ETA: I'm not a utilitarian in any shape or form. Slavery was far more efficient than payed labor. That doesn't mean it is right.

edit on 23-2-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: woodwardjnr

Sounds like a good idea for a thread. It's a shame that it's found at the end of another one.


edit on 23-2-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: horrible spelling today. forgive me



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

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.

Your link to the Stereotype Study had some interesting things to say as well:


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.


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".



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I find that progressives care more about the act of compassion than results whereas conservatives care more about the results. For example, the war on poverty. Progressives think in terms of money spent, not if the it is actually working.

For many conservatives, we view government as inefficient when it comes to providing social services. Funds tend to go to the bureaucracy instead of actually helping the people in need. I'd rather give my money away on causes that I believe are important.

Far too many progressives do not acknowledge how much the wealthy give to charity and act as benefactors for a variety of social causes from art to medical care. Government is not needed to support many of these causes as people see a need and willingly provide financial support.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Everyone should practice what they preach.

The End



Poorer conservatives more generous than wealthy liberals – new study
www.rt.com...
edit on 23-2-2016 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777
Only skim read the article but isn't it saying that poor people in conservative states donate more, not that poor conservatives donate more? Happy to be corrected if I have picked it up wrong.
Also it includes religious donations as charity which, while consistent with US tax law, may or may not be accurate.


edit on 23-2-2016 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


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.



Well it’s a fallacy to appeal to authority as you have done repeatedly.

Have you read the book? I'm curious because you've asked for authorities on the subject—"substance" as you call it—and now that I've presented some it took no more than 15-20mins for a detailed response. Perhaps you can tell me his conclusion and why you think it is wrong.


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".


Yes it is a stereotype. I wrong one I might add, which is what I’ve been arguing the whole time.

Any more straw men?



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
"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.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


"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.


Right on cue, Gryphon. Just when I thought this thread was lacking pure and utter sophistry.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

Right on cue, Gryphon. Just when I thought this thread was lacking pure and utter sophistry.


... I'm sure you forgot to add "aside from my own initial posts, of course."

Please. You and I and a few others here know full well the "dirty forensic pool" you're playing here. Honestly.

Your epigraph sets the entire tone of your village of straw-persons to a text-book "appeal to authority" ... then you proceed to huff out paragraph after paragraph of gutter-snipe politics pretending to philosophy.

You should honestly be ashamed of yourself.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Which strawmen would that be? Because I'm thinking you're not quite sure what a straw man is, and I'm laughing at your expense.




top topics



 
78
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join