United States of Narcissism

[darkdog]

WTF does that have to do with anything? There are always exceptions to the rule. I am talking about conservative MENTALITY.

Wow. Such outrage over a benign philosophical question. Here's what I'm trying to get at- what's considered more compassionate? Giving of one's own time and resources or pushing for government to take from one to give to another?

By the way, the situation isn't an exception by any means. For example, a number of liberal presidential candidates have released their tax returns and they did report their charitable givings. They were small- really small. Much smaller than their conservative opponents. Often smaller in dollar amount than the average conservative gives even though they make a lot more money than the average conservative. This is true of the current President, Kerry, and Gore.

 

[TWA]

Wow. Such outrage over a benign philosophical question. Here's what I'm trying to get at- what's considered more compassionate? Giving of one's own time and resources or pushing for government to take from one to give to another?

By the way, the situation isn't an exception by any means. For example, a number of liberal presidential candidates have released their tax returns and they did report their charitable givings. They were small- really small. Much smaller than their conservative opponents. Often smaller in dollar amount than the average conservative gives even though they make a lot more money than the average conservative. This is true of the current President, Kerry, and Gore.

Outrage? What, are you going to go with the whole "umad" schtick now? You're about 6 months late on that . . .

Look. I know exactly what you're trying to "get at," and it's completely bogus. Don't give me reduced hypothetical situations and try to use them as a local argument. I'm not even sure why I bothered responding to that fallacious reasoning. I don't even bother responding to much of your drivel anymore. But it's funny how you keep quoting what few posts I still make on this board, hoping for some sort of response.

The Conservative agenda is to get rid of social safety net programs. I don't care what you say; anyway you look at it, that is cold and lacking compassion. I also never said that liberals were shining examples of compassion (but they certainly outpace conservatives in that department). By the very definition of the word, conservative mentality is to renounce the common good and focus on individual achievement.

What happened, did you read too much Ayn Rand in college or something?

 

[darkdog]

Outrage? What, are you going to go with the whole "umad" schtick now? You're about 6 months late on that . . .

The use of "WTF" doesn't exactly indicate serene calm, considering what the F stands for.

Look. I know exactly what you're trying to "get at," and it's completely bogus. Don't give me reduced hypothetical situations and try to use them as a local argument. I'm not even sure why I bothered responding to that fallacious reasoning. I don't even bother responding to much of your drivel anymore. But it's funny how you keep quoting what few posts I still make on this board, hoping for some sort of response.

You seem awfully angry that I would dare ask a question about what's compassionate in a conversation about compassion. I mean, if you're right, why get so easily provoked? Just answer the question and prove the rightness of your position. That's what's supposed to happen in a politics forum.

The Conservative agenda is to get rid of social safety net programs. I don't care what you say; anyway you look at it, that is cold and lacking compassion. I also never said that liberals were shining examples of compassion (but they certainly outpace conservatives in that department). By the very definition of the word, conservative mentality is to renounce the common good and focus on individual achievement.

The dictionary definition of a conservative is someone who wants to preserve the status quo. What you're describing (i.e. people that want to do away with the safety net programs entirely) is a radical. Those do exist, but the mainstream conservative position is to change Social Security and Medicare so they're sustainable. Not doing that and letting them go over a fiscal cliff is about the most uncompassionate thing to do. It's probably the best strategy for those who actually want to get rid of them.

What happened, did you read too much Ayn Rand in college or something?

I don't care for Ayn Rand (although one of my favorite bands is Rush). I don't believe in selfishness. I believe in helping others. I just have this silly belief that it should be done more at the local level by willing individuals than by force of a big distant government. Think about it- Warren Buffett is famous for his philanthropy and for advocating higher taxes on the rich... so why doesn't he donate any of his billions to the treasury? Why donate it all to private charity?

 

[TWA]

The use of "WTF" doesn't exactly indicate serene calm, considering what the F stands for.

Dude, nobody gives a fuck, except for maybe one or two people. Weak shot.

You seem awfully angry that I would dare ask a question about what's compassionate in a conversation about compassion. I mean, if you're right, why get so easily provoked? Just answer the question and prove the rightness of your position. That's what's supposed to happen in a politics forum.

AllDeaf, this is what is known as the strawman fallacy. While it's no secret that I have a tendency to punch hard, I'd say I'm using kid gloves at the moment. Yet Darkdog is trying to make me into some angry incoherent liberal, which makes it easier for him to attack my credibility (i.e. "Just answer the question and prove the rightness of your position"). The hypothetical question he wants me to answer is baseless as a means of solving this debate one way or another. It's a rhetorical question. Obviously the "Tom" person that he imagined is the clear winner in the compassion department, but that doesn't mean it is a common occurrence among the conservative demographic, nor does it even begin to discuss the question of motive (many wealthy people set up foundations or "donate" money as a way to avoid taxes, protect their wealth, or other less-than-noble motives).

So why should I even bother answering a question like this. It's set up from the very beginning as a trap. Homie don't play that.

The dictionary definition of a conservative is someone who wants to preserve the status quo. What you're describing (i.e. people that want to do away with the safety net programs entirely) is a radical. Those do exist, but the mainstream conservative position is to change Social Security and Medicare so they're sustainable. Not doing that and letting them go over a fiscal cliff is about the most uncompassionate thing to do. It's probably the best strategy for those who actually want to get rid of them.

That's the best comedy I've heard all week. Thanks.

I don't care for Ayn Rand (although one of my favorite bands is Rush). I don't believe in selfishness. I believe in helping others. I just have this silly belief that it should be done more at the local level by willing individuals than by force of a big distant government. Think about it- Warren Buffett is famous for his philanthropy and for advocating higher taxes on the rich... so why doesn't he donate any of his billions to the treasury? Why donate it all to private charity?

Yes, yes, I am well aware of this tenant conservatives have. The problem is that your argument is flawed from the very beginning. You are confusing two separate things. Your definition is charity. Government safety nets are NOT charity, and they should not be viewed in that way. What the government provides its citizens is not charity; they are rights granted and protected by legislature and the law. It is a benefit of being a citizen of the best country in the world, one that grants all its citizens EQUAL access to the pursuit of happiness. Some people take advantage of that, yes. The government doesn't always run the system well, yes. But you'd be lying if you said at the individual level, people give their money to everyone equally, regardless of the recipient's background. You can pick and choose who to be charitable to. That's not what government assistance is about.

A second important point here, is that people should not have to feel shamed for receiving assistance. Charities are almost always attached to an entity with an agenda. If I need food to survive for the next month or two until I can get on my feet, I should not have to go stand in line at a Catholic church, or even a Unitarian church. Even if nobody is quoting scripture, it's still a shaming process. The government is, for the most part, a nonjudgmental and impartial disbursing entity.

 

[Berry]

I actually met a man ...

When I asked him, "But what about Great grand children and children after them?"

Who said, "What the hell do I care about them? I will never know them."

And the scary part is I'm thinking "More people think like that than have the balls to admit it."

 

[deafskeptic]

Dude, nobody gives a fuck, except for maybe one or two people. Weak shot.




AllDeaf, this is what is known as the strawman fallacy. While it's no secret that I have a tendency to punch hard, I'd say I'm using kid gloves at the moment. Yet Darkdog is trying to make me into some angry incoherent liberal, which makes it easier for him to attack my credibility (i.e. "Just answer the question and prove the rightness of your position"). The hypothetical question he wants me to answer is baseless as a means of solving this debate one way or another. It's a rhetorical question. Obviously the "Tom" person that he imagined is the clear winner in the compassion department, but that doesn't mean it is a common occurrence among the conservative demographic, nor does it even begin to discuss the question of motive (many wealthy people set up foundations or "donate" money as a way to avoid taxes, protect their wealth, or other less-than-noble motives).

So why should I even bother answering a question like this. It's set up from the very beginning as a trap. Homie don't play that.





That's the best comedy I've heard all week. Thanks.




Yes, yes, I am well aware of this tenant conservatives have. The problem is that your argument is flawed from the very beginning. You are confusing two separate things. Your definition is charity. Government safety nets are NOT charity, and they should not be viewed in that way. What the government provides its citizens is not charity; they are rights granted and protected by legislature and the law. It is a benefit of being a citizen of the best country in the world, one that grants all its citizens EQUAL access to the pursuit of happiness. Some people take advantage of that, yes. The government doesn't always run the system well, yes. But you'd be lying if you said at the individual level, people give their money to everyone equally, regardless of the recipient's background. You can pick and choose who to be charitable to. That's not what government assistance is about.

A second important point here, is that people should not have to feel shamed for receiving assistance. Charities are almost always attached to an entity with an agenda. If I need food to survive for the next month or two until I can get on my feet, I should not have to go stand in line at a Catholic church, or even a Unitarian church. Even if nobody is quoting scripture, it's still a shaming process. The government is, for the most part, a nonjudgmental and impartial disbursing entity.

That to me is far preferable to going to church for charity.

 

[Dixie]

I agree completely with this OP. Several posters and I were discussing the sense of entitlement that people in the States seem to have, and the selfish and self centered perspective they seem to have.

And it's not just the young people doing it either.

My brother bought a new truck. My dad, instead of being proud for him, became bitter and angry and took it out on me. He said "it's not right that my own two kids both drive vehicles better than mine!" I just sat there in complete disbelief. My brother has a 2007 Chevy Silverado, I have a 2001 SporTrac, at the time my parents had a 2002 Explorer and a 1978 F-150. My dad had several opportunities over the years to buy a new truck for himself, but my brother's new truck just sent feelings of jealousy through my dad who in turn took it out on me. So what did my dad do? He went out and bought a 2007 King Ranch f-250. It's a nice truck no doubt, but he bought it just because he wanted something better than what my brother and I had. Instead of having everything paid off in his retirement years, he takes on more debt then turns around and complains about not having money for this or that. I can't dictate how he spends his money, it's his money, not mine. I'm just pointing out that self-centeredness isn't just a young generation thing.

Everyone in America contributes to this United States of Narcissism mindset (I will even include myself) in one way or another. Here in America we put emphasis on things and ourselves. In having met numerous Europeans, their mindset is on experiences and sharing those experiences with others. That's why they prefer to live in simple housing and drive simple cars, so they can afford to have experiences such as traveling and education. I've also noticed that the extent of my European friends time on FB is to wish each other happy birthday or congratulations on an accomplishment. They don't discuss themselves very much, they will however mention that they are flying out of country and won't respond to messages until after a certain date. Yet- compared to America, Europeans are more satisfied with their life and many think of them as having a higher standard of living, when the reality is they live better by living simpler and living outward rather than inward.

I would rather have a small home, with a simple car, a good job, and know that my DD's needs are being met while still allowing her to have certain experiences that she can share with friends. I think America needs to look at Europe for some pointers. We need to cut ridiculous spending (c'mon, do our Legislators REALLY need another pay raise, while those dependent upon SSI may or may not be able to pay their bills this month?)
What's sad is there is no SSI for my generation and my DD's generation will be paying out the wazoo just to keep the country afloat financially.

I would like to see everyone carrying their share of the burden, if we fall as a country, then we should work as a country to get back up again. JMHO.

 

[webexplorer]

Oh boy. It is a sort of a dysfunctional family almost like my Dad and my sisters. You just have let it go and make them happy whatever they want. I hate seeing the politicians have so much far better life than us, and they have free lifetime insurance with their family and their grand-children. Screw the politicians.

I was told that Europe is much cleaner that our country. I believe that one. Maybe, the Europeans are smarter than us now than before. So, many of us have a dysfunctional family - who cares.

 

[Daredevel7]

I have a hypothetical question for you. Suppose you have a guy- we'll call him Tom- who volunteers several hours a week to help the poor and needy and donates, say, 10% of his income to charity. He also votes conservative because he believes leftist policies fall far short of their promises and often serve to make problems worse. On the other hand, Tom's neighbor, Jake, is a leftist who believes in government redistribution policies and votes for leftists, but he rarely volunteers to help others or donates to charity. Which one, in your opinion, is more selfish and which one cares more about the common good?

Hypothetical questions like this crack me up. Anyone can make up a hypothetical question to make their position "look better". For example, let's say that I am an extreme leftist. I can easily say this:

I have a hypothetical question for you. Suppose you have a guy- we'll call him Bob- who tries to pass policies to help the poor and needy on a massive scale because he doesn't believe that allowing people to make their own choices for charity will actually make a difference. Just a few dollars here and there is just a waste of money. He believes that forcing rich people to help out the poor and needy will help us in the long run, reducing unemployment, crime, deaths due to hunger, and so on. One of his policies is to make top 50% wealthiest people to contribute only 5% of their income. On the other hand, Bob's neighbor, Dick, is an extreme right winger. He contributes $10 a week to charity (which is less than 1% of his income) and believes that he DOES help poor and needy people and that he and others shouldn't be forced to pay more (or anything at all).

Which one, in your opinion, is more selfish and which one cares more about the common good?

 

[naisho]

Once hypothetical, always hypothetical. :P

I always liked coining that term. Makes me feel all high-brow and stuff! Capt'n Obvious to the rescue.

 

[jillio]

Dude, nobody gives a fuck, except for maybe one or two people. Weak shot.




AllDeaf, this is what is known as the strawman fallacy. While it's no secret that I have a tendency to punch hard, I'd say I'm using kid gloves at the moment. Yet Darkdog is trying to make me into some angry incoherent liberal, which makes it easier for him to attack my credibility (i.e. "Just answer the question and prove the rightness of your position"). The hypothetical question he wants me to answer is baseless as a means of solving this debate one way or another. It's a rhetorical question. Obviously the "Tom" person that he imagined is the clear winner in the compassion department, but that doesn't mean it is a common occurrence among the conservative demographic, nor does it even begin to discuss the question of motive (many wealthy people set up foundations or "donate" money as a way to avoid taxes, protect their wealth, or other less-than-noble motives).

So why should I even bother answering a question like this. It's set up from the very beginning as a trap. Homie don't play that.





That's the best comedy I've heard all week. Thanks.




Yes, yes, I am well aware of this tenant conservatives have. The problem is that your argument is flawed from the very beginning. You are confusing two separate things. Your definition is charity. Government safety nets are NOT charity, and they should not be viewed in that way. What the government provides its citizens is not charity; they are rights granted and protected by legislature and the law. It is a benefit of being a citizen of the best country in the world, one that grants all its citizens EQUAL access to the pursuit of happiness. Some people take advantage of that, yes. The government doesn't always run the system well, yes. But you'd be lying if you said at the individual level, people give their money to everyone equally, regardless of the recipient's background. You can pick and choose who to be charitable to. That's not what government assistance is about.

A second important point here, is that people should not have to feel shamed for receiving assistance. Charities are almost always attached to an entity with an agenda. If I need food to survive for the next month or two until I can get on my feet, I should not have to go stand in line at a Catholic church, or even a Unitarian church. Even if nobody is quoting scripture, it's still a shaming process. The government is, for the most part, a nonjudgmental and impartial disbursing entity.

God, I love it when that transparency of the insincere and manipulative is pulled away by one who can see beneath it.

Of course, you do realize that you will now be subjected to the same ad hominmen attacks as I simply because you exposed the dishonesty.

 

[deafskeptic]

And it's not just the young people doing it either.

My brother bought a new truck. My dad, instead of being proud for him, became bitter and angry and took it out on me. He said "it's not right that my own two kids both drive vehicles better than mine!" I just sat there in complete disbelief. My brother has a 2007 Chevy Silverado, I have a 2001 SporTrac, at the time my parents had a 2002 Explorer and a 1978 F-150. My dad had several opportunities over the years to buy a new truck for himself, but my brother's new truck just sent feelings of jealousy through my dad who in turn took it out on me. So what did my dad do? He went out and bought a 2007 King Ranch f-250. It's a nice truck no doubt, but he bought it just because he wanted something better than what my brother and I had. Instead of having everything paid off in his retirement years, he takes on more debt then turns around and complains about not having money for this or that. I can't dictate how he spends his money, it's his money, not mine. I'm just pointing out that self-centeredness isn't just a young generation thing.

Everyone in America contributes to this United States of Narcissism mindset (I will even include myself) in one way or another. Here in America we put emphasis on things and ourselves. In having met numerous Europeans, their mindset is on experiences and sharing those experiences with others. That's why they prefer to live in simple housing and drive simple cars, so they can afford to have experiences such as traveling and education. I've also noticed that the extent of my European friends time on FB is to wish each other happy birthday or congratulations on an accomplishment. They don't discuss themselves very much, they will however mention that they are flying out of country and won't respond to messages until after a certain date. Yet- compared to America, Europeans are more satisfied with their life and many think of them as having a higher standard of living, when the reality is they live better by living simpler and living outward rather than inward.

I would rather have a small home, with a simple car, a good job, and know that my DD's needs are being met while still allowing her to have certain experiences that she can share with friends. I think America needs to look at Europe for some pointers. We need to cut ridiculous spending (c'mon, do our Legislators REALLY need another pay raise, while those dependent upon SSI may or may not be able to pay their bills this month?)
What's sad is there is no SSI for my generation and my DD's generation will be paying out the wazoo just to keep the country afloat financially.

I would like to see everyone carrying their share of the burden, if we fall as a country, then we should work as a country to get back up again. JMHO.

I am dumbfounded at your dad's reaction to your brother's truck. I would have thought he'd be proud of him instead of jealous.

 

[darkdog]

AllDeaf, this is what is known as the strawman fallacy. While it's no secret that I have a tendency to punch hard, I'd say I'm using kid gloves at the moment.

Hey, if you're holding back some powerful facts and logic that will make your case, please by all means let me have it.

Yet Darkdog is trying to make me into some angry incoherent liberal, which makes it easier for him to attack my credibility (i.e. "Just answer the question and prove the rightness of your position"). The hypothetical question he wants me to answer is baseless as a means of solving this debate one way or another. It's a rhetorical question. Obviously the "Tom" person that he imagined is the clear winner in the compassion department, but that doesn't mean it is a common occurrence among the conservative demographic, nor does it even begin to discuss the question of motive (many wealthy people set up foundations or "donate" money as a way to avoid taxes, protect their wealth, or other less-than-noble motives).

That's more like it. Thank you for answering the question honestly. Your answer has two parts, so let's start with the first: that freely giving of one's own time and money is a much better indicator of compassionate and caring than supporting one side of the aisle over another. I would agree with you. That's the main reason I asked the question- to boil it down to priorities. If people start to think they can fulfill their duty to be charitable to their fellow man just by voting for certain people and supporting certain causes, that's troublesome.

The second part is you feel this my scenario is unrealistic. Yes, Tom would be above average in his charity and Jake would be below average. However, there are also liberal Toms who are very giving of their own resources and there are conservative Jakes who are stingy. Overall, the left and the right are probably about equal in terms of personal charitable giving, although given the nature of statistics, one could twist the facts any which way. Still, it's incorrect to say the left is much more giving and compassionate than the right, as some here have been saying.

So why should I even bother answering a question like this. It's set up from the very beginning as a trap. Homie don't play that.

But you did just answer the answer and it was a fine answer. You didn't fall into a trap because there is no trap. I promise I have no intention in asking such a question other than what I stated above- as a way to kickstart a conversation about what's true compassion.

That's the best comedy I've heard all week. Thanks.

Thank you, thank you very much. You've been a great audience!

Yes, yes, I am well aware of this tenant conservatives have. The problem is that your argument is flawed from the very beginning. You are confusing two separate things. Your definition is charity. Government safety nets are NOT charity, and they should not be viewed in that way. What the government provides its citizens is not charity; they are rights granted and protected by legislature and the law. It is a benefit of being a citizen of the best country in the world, one that grants all its citizens EQUAL access to the pursuit of happiness. Some people take advantage of that, yes. The government doesn't always run the system well, yes.

Their intended goal is the same- to help those who need help. The more charity there is, the less need for government-run safety nets. What I'm getting at with the Warren Buffet question is that while he talks about increased taxes for the government to help people, he gives his money to charity. I applaud that, by the way, but if he really thought a dollar in the public sector was better spent than in charity, he should have written a check to Treasury.

But you'd be lying if you said at the individual level, people give their money to everyone equally, regardless of the recipient's background. You can pick and choose who to be charitable to. That's not what government assistance is about.

Most people, given the choice to help a family who suffered misfortune and find themselves homeless or a drug addict who refuses to clean himself up, would pick the unfortunate family. Yet, there are all sorts of charities and non-government organizations to help people in all sorts of situations, even of their own doing.

 

[darkdog]

Hypothetical questions like this crack me up. Anyone can make up a hypothetical question to make their position "look better". For example, let's say that I am an extreme leftist. I can easily say this:

I have a hypothetical question for you. Suppose you have a guy- we'll call him Bob- who tries to pass policies to help the poor and needy on a massive scale because he doesn't believe that allowing people to make their own choices for charity will actually make a difference. Just a few dollars here and there is just a waste of money. He believes that forcing rich people to help out the poor and needy will help us in the long run, reducing unemployment, crime, deaths due to hunger, and so on. One of his policies is to make top 50% wealthiest people to contribute only 5% of their income. On the other hand, Bob's neighbor, Dick, is an extreme right winger. He contributes $10 a week to charity (which is less than 1% of his income) and believes that he DOES help poor and needy people and that he and others shouldn't be forced to pay more (or anything at all).

Which one, in your opinion, is more selfish and which one cares more about the common good?

That's actually a good question. We should see more questions like this around here. And I will gladly answer it.

As for Bob, politically speaking, I believe his intent is good while I disagree with some of his policies. For instance, I don't see how forcing rich people to pay more to charity will reduce unemployment. It may help the poor people, but I don't see it having a positive effect on employment. As far as forcing the top 50% to pay 5% of their income to charity, I'm assuming you mean they would have to prove to the government somehow that they paid. While I can see many problems with that, now that I think about it, part of me would actually prefer that over the way things work now. Still, as far as selfishness goes, to me, that would largely depend on whether he's already donating his time and money willingly, regardless of government policy. I can't really make a comparison without knowing that.

As for Dick (I see what you did there ), yeah, he's certainly on the stingy side and while $500 a year isn't totally selfish, he's not all that charitable either. Unless he's in really bad financial straits, he probably should work on bumping that up. As for the part about feeling like he shouldn't be forced to pay at all, I'm assuming you're talking about taxes. He would be very atypical among conservatives unless he's a Ron Paul type or something. After all, conservatives aren't anarchists. They do believe in government, albeit one that's limited.

Thanks for the question. It made me think. Please feel free to fill in some of the assumptions I made if you wish.

 

[Dixie]

Remember the parable of the poor woman who put her two cents in?

There were many wealthy men who were giving to the offering out of their surplus. But a poor woman walked up and put her last two pieces of silver in. The wealthy men laughed and scoffed at her for her two pieces of silver. Then men gave just a small portion out of their surplus which was still far more than just two pieces of silver, but the poor woman gave all that she had. She had given more of herself than all of the wealthy men combined.

 

[Daredevel7]

That's actually a good question. We should see more questions like this around here. And I will gladly answer it.

As for Bob, politically speaking, I believe his intent is good while I disagree with some of his policies. For instance, I don't see how forcing rich people to pay more to charity will reduce unemployment. It may help the poor people, but I don't see it having a positive effect on employment. As far as forcing the top 50% to pay 5% of their income to charity, I'm assuming you mean they would have to prove to the government somehow that they paid. While I can see many problems with that, now that I think about it, part of me would actually prefer that over the way things work now. Still, as far as selfishness goes, to me, that would largely depend on whether he's already donating his time and money willingly, regardless of government policy. I can't really make a comparison without knowing that.

As for Dick (I see what you did there ), yeah, he's certainly on the stingy side and while $500 a year isn't totally selfish, he's not all that charitable either. Unless he's in really bad financial straits, he probably should work on bumping that up. As for the part about feeling like he shouldn't be forced to pay at all, I'm assuming you're talking about taxes. He would be very atypical among conservatives unless he's a Ron Paul type or something. After all, conservatives aren't anarchists. They do believe in government, albeit one that's limited.

Thanks for the question. It made me think. Please feel free to fill in some of the assumptions I made if you wish.

As for charity reducing unemployment, I think you are assuming I am talking about simply giving the poor money. There are charities/non-profit organizations that help people find jobs. Many exist already for the government: vocational rehabilitation.

As for "forcing us to pay at all", well, I was thinking both Bob and Dick would have to pay at least SOME tax (military, SS, etc). Dick believes that we should not pay any tax that helps poor and the needy ONLY. So Dick believes that it should be up to the individual if they want to contribute.

I believe the scenario would be very different if it was shown statistically that more money to help the poor and needy does have positive results (not just for them, but for everyone else, too).

 

[jillio]

Hey, if you're holding back some powerful facts and logic that will make your case, please by all means let me have it.

That's more like it. Thank you for answering the question honestly. Your answer has two parts, so let's start with the first: that freely giving of one's own time and money is a much better indicator of compassionate and caring than supporting one side of the aisle over another. I would agree with you. That's the main reason I asked the question- to boil it down to priorities. If people start to think they can fulfill their duty to be charitable to their fellow man just by voting for certain people and supporting certain causes, that's troublesome.

The second part is you feel this my scenario is unrealistic. Yes, Tom would be above average in his charity and Jake would be below average. However, there are also liberal Toms who are very giving of their own resources and there are conservative Jakes who are stingy. Overall, the left and the right are probably about equal in terms of personal charitable giving, although given the nature of statistics, one could twist the facts any which way. Still, it's incorrect to say the left is much more giving and compassionate than the right, as some here have been saying.


But you did just answer the answer and it was a fine answer. You didn't fall into a trap because there is no trap. I promise I have no intention in asking such a question other than what I stated above- as a way to kickstart a conversation about what's true compassion.


Thank you, thank you very much. You've been a great audience!


Their intended goal is the same- to help those who need help. The more charity there is, the less need for government-run safety nets. What I'm getting at with the Warren Buffet question is that while he talks about increased taxes for the government to help people, he gives his money to charity. I applaud that, by the way, but if he really thought a dollar in the public sector was better spent than in charity, he should have written a check to Treasury.


Most people, given the choice to help a family who suffered misfortune and find themselves homeless or a drug addict who refuses to clean himself up, would pick the unfortunate family. Yet, there are all sorts of charities and non-government organizations to help people in all sorts of situations, even of their own doing.[/QUOTE]

What universe do you live in?:roll:

 

[jillio]

As for charity reducing unemployment, I think you are assuming I am talking about simply giving the poor money. There are charities/non-profit organizations that help people find jobs. Many exist already for the government: vocational rehabilitation.

As for "forcing us to pay at all", well, I was thinking both Bob and Dick would have to pay at least SOME tax (military, SS, etc). Dick believes that we should not pay any tax that helps poor and the needy ONLY. So Dick believes that it should be up to the individual if they want to contribute.

I believe the scenario would be very different if it was shown statistically that more money to help the poor and needy does have positive results (not just for them, but for everyone else, too).

Those statistics actually exist buried in the anals of sociological and social work research.

 

[Daredevel7]

Those statistics actually exist buried in the anals of sociological and social work research.

Okay, let me rephrase.

I believe the scenario would be very different if people BELIEVED in the statistics that show that more money to help the poor and needy does have positive results for everyone.

 

[jillio]

Okay, let me rephrase.

I believe the scenario would be very different if people BELIEVED in the statistics that show that more money to help the poor and needy does have positive results for everyone.

There you go! Or if they would even bother to look at the statistics...which is what I was implying. Most don't want to look at the statistics, because it throws a wrench into their narcissistic perspective.:P