Empathy and conservatism

2008 and 1929 would like to have a word with you.

 

Apparently you don't understand the nature of business cycles.

 

I will summarize a point:

Conservatism don't want to erradicate poors. Don't want to end with the poverty and that is possible.

 

That's simply false and disingenuous. You just disagree with the method conservatives choose

 

Hmm...how often, historically speaking, have we seen mass suicides by major corporations related to financial scandals and dirty capitalism? I don't think I'd call the failures of almost ALL of the major US banks, followed by many industries related to those banks, all in a two week span, "business as usual". (cue the corporate apologists blaming the government for greedy private industry decisions)

 

Because I know that are a failure and bring to the people to more poverty. The history is there. The XIX century is the best example of that and the beginning of the XX century.

And I know that there are conservative that truely believe that their methods will help people. But there are many others that have pure selfish reasons. And don't have many problems with child labour, conditions of the workers close to slavery and all that.

 

of course it's not business as usual. you have just confirmed my suspicion that you don't understand the nature of business cycles. hint: they are caused by non market forces.

 

well that is the point we are arguing- whose solutions are better. you circumvent that argument by assuming your premise when you say that conservatives don't want to end poverty.

 

What's wrong with selfishness?

 

How about you one day, just once, deal with the main point in a reasonable and enlightened way instead of deflecting and distracting?

try this. If you are so petty as to be hung up on the fish analogy, and who is on food stamps, try substituting the word welfare or unemployment.

Does that ease your pain...

Oh wait, that isn't you objective is it? You need to make yourself feel bigger by belittling others.

 

It's not that we don't have empathy. In fact, the Christians among us typically have a great deal of empathy for our fellow man. However, we also recognize that empathizing with someone does not mean constantly bailing them out of trouble. We recognize that in the long run this does not help them but only enables them and keeps them exactly where they are. Because it ultimately prevents them from learning the valuable life lessons necessary to be happy, healthy, and self-sufficient.

There is a reason why we firmly believe that if you give a man a fish he will eat for a day but if you teach him how to fish he will eat for a lifetime. Because we understand that challenge and adversity create strength and build character. Someone who is denied the opportunity to learn problem solving skills cannot grow. And if you cannot grow, you remain stuck.

Think of it like this. When you're a baby, your parents change your diapers. But as you grow, they recognize the need to ween you off of that dependence and encourage you to take care of your own needs. This is how you become self-sufficient. If an overly empathetic need to take care of you prevented your parents from toilet training you, you'd still be (*)(*)(*)(*)ting your pants today.

This is a microcosm of life.

 

So whether or not we're talking about children on welfare isn't actual relevant to the question of whether or not conservatives are empathetic when they vote to cut welfare?

Hey, I'm not the one caught up on the fish analogy. You guys want to make the fish analogy and then go home like that answers a whole bunch of questions, but it doesn't. Welfare, unemployment, these are questions that involve a ton of children and old people and disabled people and people who, to continue the metaphor, should not be expected to fish for a living in the first place. You trot out a few examples from Jerry Springer of disability frauds or welfare moms and think that proves that people shouldn't be given fish, but the fact is that people need fish, every society up until the invention of capitalism would have given them fish, and you are the ones too caught up in your own metaphor.

When they compare themselves to mama birds and society to baby birds as an excuse to prove the OP ACCURATE, then yes, I will belittle them. As any rational human being should. And no, it doesn't make me feel better, it just makes me sad that I have to explain this. You should know this.

 

Conservatives want to end the conditions of poverty. To a large degree they have been successful. Someone at the poverty line in America is still wealthy compared to much of the world.

The mental trap of the leftist is not to be able to see that, and instead to only feel jealousy of those who have it even better than themselves regardless of what they themselves have.

I imagine in my old age watching protests because of how people are suffering only having two robots that do all their chores while the wealthy have dozens.

You know, I think fencer has hit on where kilgram is coming from where charity is bad.

We're thinking about charity from the perspectives of a giver, a third party, or a reciever who would otherwise go without.

I think kilgram views it from the perspective of a reciever, and without the idea of going without as an option, but instead two options.

The first is to recieve charity. Which, even if he were recieving it from annonymous givers, still carries some of the emotions fencer is talking about. And maybe some other emotions, like gratitute, or a feeling like maybe they ought to pay it forward to somebody else, or be generous themselves at some point, at least with their spare time.

The second choice though, is to team up with some buddies and take what they want. To say they deserve what they're taking and that those that had it were all dirty pigs. And since they deserved it in the first place, they don't feel like they have to spend a second of their spare time on anybody else, unless they're protesting for more money for themselves! Now that's something to head out to the bar for a round of drinks about! Good times!

I wouldn't say at odds exactly. In either response you're ultimately trying to dry those tears. It's the difference between a foolish short term response versus a wiser long term one.

Do they not even teach you about the history of the Soviet Union in your country? Any of the "comunist" states?

And many liberals have purely selfish reasons for their economic policies. That's why many liberals stop being liberals as they get older and earn some more money. And not only are they selfish with their votes, but also with their time and money in relation to their fellow man.

Oh that's just not true. At least not for modern conservatives. Unless you count making your kid do some chores for their allowance.

 

I thought corporations were people? Oh yeah...corporations have purchased government. You have a point.

 

Well, for starters, the tendency for humans to be selfish pretty much destroys any concept based on the lack of government.

 

Human beings have a tendency to be selfish? News to me.

 

What a brilliant point.

So. own it all...lock, stock and barrel should be the goal. You either partake in the rape...I mean fishing, and take whatever you want, and as much as you want, or shut up. Crapitalism.

Point is we've over fished the waters, and your solution is to fish more.

 

We're driven by self-interest. Rational self-interest can translate into actions that support the community, but a lot of people -- especially in materialistic societies -- never reach the rational self-interest level.

If we weren't driven by self-interest, capitalism wouldn't work at all.

 

Ok then...if that's what you think, I guess you will be able to explain...why? What exactly is the benefit a conservative has for doing that?

I do however have a theory as to why democrats would want to do that...but, I will wait for your answer first.

Thanks.

 

It's already failed. Society owes me nothing. The rich pigs that hijacked the system to benefit themselves at the expense of humanity however, could be a different argument. The American dream is dead. It's been sold. Shipped out. GONE.

 

No we're not, and that's a problem.

 

There ya go...it's "just business"....a cycle. Trickle down. Yeah....I do feel it trickling. Anybody think we're NOT headed for disaster with this kind of mentality?

 

no, it hasn't failed. government has failed. and of course society owes you nothing. its good you realize that.

 

apparently you don't know what the business cycle is either. it is absolutely not "just business"

 

Conservatives give much more to charity than Liberals which means they obviously care more for the less fortunate. That's a well-documented fact. Is this a troll post or are you really this dense?