Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

If Liberals are so empathetic...

Page 12 of 22 [ 342 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 22  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

HisDivineMajesty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,364
Location: Planet Earth

20 May 2012, 12:24 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
The problem I have with Christian Fundamentalism is that there is no social gospel.


What they believe is, on a local level, completely unrelated to what they do. Their beliefs may be a bit creepy (the party I'd vote for in local elections is not really in favour of democracy and wants to limit or ban homosexuality), but they can't carry out those beliefs in policies on a local level, and their other policies are much more humane. In the time it takes social democrats to argue about the location of a new school with a lot of paid 'planning experts', these people just go out there, talk to locals and decide on the best location, meaning we don't spend thousands on advisors and the school is built years earlier.

I'm very much in favour of more pragmatic governments that pay more attention to local needs and capacities. It's much more realistic to decide for a few hundred people you know than it is to look at a few sheets of numbers, then deciding to raise the retirement age. It's easier to determine where you can place new housing projects if you know the area than if you ask several 'experts' who've only looked at a map.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

20 May 2012, 12:36 pm

Even at a local level a fundamentalist will declare free public education as a failed experiment in evil socialism. But his alternative is worse. Even if he succeeds in eliminating public education and replacing it with so called Christian schools there will be the tuition barrier which means a flat tuition will be charged regardless of a persons ability to afford an education. This will mean that the poor will have no access to education for their children once education becomes a marketplace.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

20 May 2012, 12:45 pm

Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
My mom debates these issues constantly with her good friend, Sarah Palin groupie, who is living on a government pension, very nicely, all the healthcare funded by taxpayers. The irony is amazing.


Did she pay into the pension? IMHO taking a benefit you don't agree with but nevertheless paid for isn't hypocrisy.


if she contributed, it was a small fraction, I am pretty sure the formula has always put most of it on the taxpayers, and it has been easy for county servants to bump their pension by working a ton of overtime in their last year before retirement only. They get back much, much more than was ever contributed by them or even on their behalf to the plan, plus investment returns, and underfunded pensions are threatening to bankrupt many counties around here. We have to cut services so a group of higher ranking retirees can draw 100-250k annual pensions, it is ridiculous. I don't know how much my mom's friend gets, but she is living nicer in her husband's retirement than she did when he was working, and I'd have to guess they are among the 100-200K in pension families, PLUS medical. No way did they put that money in while working, and they know it.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

20 May 2012, 1:57 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
if she contributed, it was a small fraction, I am pretty sure the formula has always put most of it on the taxpayers, and it has been easy for county servants to bump their pension by working a ton of overtime in their last year before retirement only. They get back much, much more than was ever contributed by them or even on their behalf to the plan, plus investment returns, and underfunded pensions are threatening to bankrupt many counties around here. We have to cut services so a group of higher ranking retirees can draw 100-250k annual pensions, it is ridiculous. I don't know how much my mom's friend gets, but she is living nicer in her husband's retirement than she did when he was working, and I'd have to guess they are among the 100-200K in pension families, PLUS medical. No way did they put that money in while working, and they know it.


Ahh, I should have known that you'd follow the screwy math behind a lot of public sector compensation plans, being both a Californian and a CPA.

So, what's your opinion on public sector unions these days? :D


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

20 May 2012, 2:47 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Catch-22

If liberals really can't empathize with conservatives because of a difference in brain structure and absence of certain moral building blocks, would they even be aware of the weakness?

Read it again:

Quote:
When I speak to liberal audiences about the three “binding” foundations—loyalty, authority, and sanctity—I find that many in the audience don’t just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral. Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia.


Does that sound like empathy?

I haven't read the article, just pieces of your quotes and I rather not spend or waste some of my time doing it, mainly for the sake of feeding somone else's confirmation bias, but I'd ask, is this a psychological study or a political or a social study? If it isn't actually related to the study of the brain then screw it! Not to mention that I don't put much trust on data from sampling anyway, unless such study is confirmed several times somewhere else, so it ends up somehow pointless for me.

Based on this post, your idea of empathy seems a bit flawd or wether its used honestly, regarding the nature of empathy and how it works in the brain, it seems that the idea can work political grounds, surely, I can imagine folks on Fox News stating that liberals pretend to have empathy and the like, and it shouldn't be surprising if they do.

Anyway, empathy doesn't look to work that strictly, I mean, is known that in average, X person would be more empathetic towards someone they don't know and someone who they like, than someone who they dislike or feel angry at at one specific moment, I don't see anything new about that.

And failing to represent the exact opposite ideological point of view equals failing at empathy is questionable, as the issue is understanding the aspects of an ideology and philosophy.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

20 May 2012, 3:12 pm

Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
if she contributed, it was a small fraction, I am pretty sure the formula has always put most of it on the taxpayers, and it has been easy for county servants to bump their pension by working a ton of overtime in their last year before retirement only. They get back much, much more than was ever contributed by them or even on their behalf to the plan, plus investment returns, and underfunded pensions are threatening to bankrupt many counties around here. We have to cut services so a group of higher ranking retirees can draw 100-250k annual pensions, it is ridiculous. I don't know how much my mom's friend gets, but she is living nicer in her husband's retirement than she did when he was working, and I'd have to guess they are among the 100-200K in pension families, PLUS medical. No way did they put that money in while working, and they know it.


Ahh, I should have known that you'd follow the screwy math behind a lot of public sector compensation plans, being both a Californian and a CPA.

So, what's your opinion on public sector unions these days? :D


lol, shall we go with, "it's complicated?"


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 May 2012, 5:12 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
^
In theory, the liberal narrative is closer to my own beliefs, but in practice I often find myself at odds with liberals, usually over the role, size and power of the state. I fight with conservatives over similar things but in different areas, the size of the military vs the size of the welfare state, over-regulation of people's personal liberties vs over-regulation of their economic liberties, etc.


But without a state large enough to combat societal evils, who will be capable of fighting and winning?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Then you're for big government and all of it's trappings and intrusions.
You CANNOT have true liberty and freedom with big brother looking over your shoulder all the time and holding your hand whether you want it held or not............period.


Without big government "intrusions," there would be no civil rights act. There would be no laws protecting labor and consumers. When gay marriage becomes legal, it will doubtlessly come by big government's intervention. Local and state government, as well as commercial interests have usually been the enemy of people's rights from the beginning, and can only be stopped by the federal government acting for the oppressed.
There are exceptions, of course, such as when my state of Washington, New York, Iowa, and others had enacted gay marriage as a right - something which "small government conservatives" want to abolish from the federal level.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 May 2012, 5:53 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
^
In theory, the liberal narrative is closer to my own beliefs, but in practice I often find myself at odds with liberals, usually over the role, size and power of the state. I fight with conservatives over similar things but in different areas, the size of the military vs the size of the welfare state, over-regulation of people's personal liberties vs over-regulation of their economic liberties, etc.


But without a state large enough to combat societal evils, who will be capable of fighting and winning?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Then you're for big government and all of it's trappings and intrusions.
You CANNOT have true liberty and freedom with big brother looking over your shoulder all the time and holding your hand whether you want it held or not............period.


Without big government "intrusions," there would be no civil rights act. There would be no laws protecting labor and consumers. When gay marriage becomes legal, it will doubtlessly come by big government's intervention. Local and state government, as well as commercial interests have usually been the enemy of people's rights from the beginning, and can only be stopped by the federal government acting for the oppressed.
There are exceptions, of course, such as when my state of Washington, New York, Iowa, and others had enacted gay marriage as a right - something which "small government conservatives" want to abolish from the federal level.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force;
like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."
- George Washington

BTW, you seem to put a disproportionate amount of stock in gay rights..............



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 May 2012, 6:42 pm

Raptor wrote:

BTW, you seem to put a disproportionate amount of stock in gay rights..............


Probably because gay folks are the most picked on group in the country.

It is considered no great wrong to mock, revile, insult and even physically abuse gay folks.

In the old days they used to abuse Jews and Negroes. Not it is gays.

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 May 2012, 7:00 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
^
In theory, the liberal narrative is closer to my own beliefs, but in practice I often find myself at odds with liberals, usually over the role, size and power of the state. I fight with conservatives over similar things but in different areas, the size of the military vs the size of the welfare state, over-regulation of people's personal liberties vs over-regulation of their economic liberties, etc.


But without a state large enough to combat societal evils, who will be capable of fighting and winning?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Then you're for big government and all of it's trappings and intrusions.
You CANNOT have true liberty and freedom with big brother looking over your shoulder all the time and holding your hand whether you want it held or not............period.


Without big government "intrusions," there would be no civil rights act. There would be no laws protecting labor and consumers. When gay marriage becomes legal, it will doubtlessly come by big government's intervention. Local and state government, as well as commercial interests have usually been the enemy of people's rights from the beginning, and can only be stopped by the federal government acting for the oppressed.
There are exceptions, of course, such as when my state of Washington, New York, Iowa, and others had enacted gay marriage as a right - something which "small government conservatives" want to abolish from the federal level.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force;
like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."
- George Washington

BTW, you seem to put a disproportionate amount of stock in gay rights..............


So... you wheel out a quote by George Washington that's supposed to eclipse the whole history of government intervention in defense of civil rights. Without civil rights, there is no freedom.
And I'm not sure just what you're implying about me for defending gay rights, but as I've stated before, I'm a married man with a seven year old daughter. I think my heterosexual qualifications are well in order. And as Ruveyn had written, gays are the group it's currently perceived okay to discriminate against, replacing Jews and blacks. Well, as far as I'm concerned, the struggle for gay rights if the new civil rights movement, and like plenty of straight Americans, I'm proud to support the march for equality for all citizens of this country.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 May 2012, 7:17 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Raptor wrote:

BTW, you seem to put a disproportionate amount of stock in gay rights..............


Probably because gay folks are the most picked on group in the country.

It is considered no great wrong to mock, revile, insult and even physically abuse gay folks.

In the old days they used to abuse Jews and Negroes. Not it is gays.

ruveyn


And my ancestry, mostly German and Irish, received their fair share of being picked on as immigrants in this country back in the day as well.
They somehow got through it without the help of big government.
Imagine that......



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 May 2012, 7:32 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
^
In theory, the liberal narrative is closer to my own beliefs, but in practice I often find myself at odds with liberals, usually over the role, size and power of the state. I fight with conservatives over similar things but in different areas, the size of the military vs the size of the welfare state, over-regulation of people's personal liberties vs over-regulation of their economic liberties, etc.


But without a state large enough to combat societal evils, who will be capable of fighting and winning?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Then you're for big government and all of it's trappings and intrusions.
You CANNOT have true liberty and freedom with big brother looking over your shoulder all the time and holding your hand whether you want it held or not............period.


Without big government "intrusions," there would be no civil rights act. There would be no laws protecting labor and consumers. When gay marriage becomes legal, it will doubtlessly come by big government's intervention. Local and state government, as well as commercial interests have usually been the enemy of people's rights from the beginning, and can only be stopped by the federal government acting for the oppressed.
There are exceptions, of course, such as when my state of Washington, New York, Iowa, and others had enacted gay marriage as a right - something which "small government conservatives" want to abolish from the federal level.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force;
like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."
- George Washington

BTW, you seem to put a disproportionate amount of stock in gay rights..............


So... you wheel out a quote by George Washington that's supposed to eclipse the whole history of government intervention in defense of civil rights. Without civil rights, there is no freedom.
And I'm not sure just what you're implying about me for defending gay rights, but as I've stated before, I'm a married man with a seven year old daughter. I think my heterosexual qualifications are well in order. And as Ruveyn had written, gays are the group it's currently perceived okay to discriminate against, replacing Jews and blacks. Well, as far as I'm concerned, the struggle for gay rights if the new civil rights movement, and like plenty of straight Americans, I'm proud to support the march for equality for all citizens of this country.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The George Washington quote pretty much sums up what government is; a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Most conservatives including myself are all for limiting the role of that entity for those very reasons.
I see my innocent observation has automatically put you in the defensive mode......



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 May 2012, 7:47 pm

Raptor wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Raptor wrote:

BTW, you seem to put a disproportionate amount of stock in gay rights..............


Probably because gay folks are the most picked on group in the country.

It is considered no great wrong to mock, revile, insult and even physically abuse gay folks.

In the old days they used to abuse Jews and Negroes. Not it is gays.

ruveyn


And my ancestry, mostly German and Irish, received their fair share of being picked on as immigrants in this country back in the day as well.
They somehow got through it without the help of big government.
Imagine that......


Society is more willing to assimilate certain groups than others. German and Irish Americans (and my family is mostly German) over time became less exotic in the eyes of Americans, and were deemed fellow legitimate citizens. Other groups, such as gays and blacks, on the other hand have been excluded by a great many of their fellow Americans, regardless of their contributions. In such cases, the wait for civil rights has become too long, and government intervention is required to bring them into mainstream American society. Though I will be the first to concede, plenty of Americans believe strongly enough in equal rights that they had always accepted blacks and gays.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 May 2012, 7:53 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
^
In theory, the liberal narrative is closer to my own beliefs, but in practice I often find myself at odds with liberals, usually over the role, size and power of the state. I fight with conservatives over similar things but in different areas, the size of the military vs the size of the welfare state, over-regulation of people's personal liberties vs over-regulation of their economic liberties, etc.


But without a state large enough to combat societal evils, who will be capable of fighting and winning?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Then you're for big government and all of it's trappings and intrusions.
You CANNOT have true liberty and freedom with big brother looking over your shoulder all the time and holding your hand whether you want it held or not............period.


Without big government "intrusions," there would be no civil rights act. There would be no laws protecting labor and consumers. When gay marriage becomes legal, it will doubtlessly come by big government's intervention. Local and state government, as well as commercial interests have usually been the enemy of people's rights from the beginning, and can only be stopped by the federal government acting for the oppressed.
There are exceptions, of course, such as when my state of Washington, New York, Iowa, and others had enacted gay marriage as a right - something which "small government conservatives" want to abolish from the federal level.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force;
like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."
- George Washington

BTW, you seem to put a disproportionate amount of stock in gay rights..............


So... you wheel out a quote by George Washington that's supposed to eclipse the whole history of government intervention in defense of civil rights. Without civil rights, there is no freedom.
And I'm not sure just what you're implying about me for defending gay rights, but as I've stated before, I'm a married man with a seven year old daughter. I think my heterosexual qualifications are well in order. And as Ruveyn had written, gays are the group it's currently perceived okay to discriminate against, replacing Jews and blacks. Well, as far as I'm concerned, the struggle for gay rights if the new civil rights movement, and like plenty of straight Americans, I'm proud to support the march for equality for all citizens of this country.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The George Washington quote pretty much sums up what government is; a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Most conservatives including myself are all for limiting the role of that entity for those very reasons.
I see my innocent observation has automatically put you in the defensive mode......


You still haven't addressed the central point of my post - that the federal government has championed civil liberties for those Americans excluded from the mainstream. If anything, small government has only perpetuated the second class status of certain Americans.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 May 2012, 8:04 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Raptor wrote:

BTW, you seem to put a disproportionate amount of stock in gay rights..............


Probably because gay folks are the most picked on group in the country.

It is considered no great wrong to mock, revile, insult and even physically abuse gay folks.

In the old days they used to abuse Jews and Negroes. Not it is gays.

ruveyn


And my ancestry, mostly German and Irish, received their fair share of being picked on as immigrants in this country back in the day as well.
They somehow got through it without the help of big government.
Imagine that......


Society is more willing to assimilate certain groups than others. German and Irish Americans (and my family is mostly German) over time became less exotic in the eyes of Americans, and were deemed fellow legitimate citizens. Other groups, such as gays and blacks, on the other hand have been excluded by a great many of their fellow Americans, regardless of their contributions. In such cases, the wait for civil rights has become too long, and government intervention is required to bring them into mainstream American society. Though I will be the first to concede, plenty of Americans believe strongly enough in equal rights that they had always accepted blacks and gays.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I don't know about your neck of the woods but where I live I'm not seeing any discernible persecution or exclusion of anyone, black and even gays included.
Maybe you need to move somewhere where there's more diversity and not so much hate and intolerance.
But then again without hate and intolerance liberals wouldn't have a purpose to rally around.......



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 May 2012, 10:59 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Raptor wrote:

BTW, you seem to put a disproportionate amount of stock in gay rights..............


Probably because gay folks are the most picked on group in the country.

It is considered no great wrong to mock, revile, insult and even physically abuse gay folks.

In the old days they used to abuse Jews and Negroes. Not it is gays.

ruveyn


And my ancestry, mostly German and Irish, received their fair share of being picked on as immigrants in this country back in the day as well.
They somehow got through it without the help of big government.
Imagine that......


Society is more willing to assimilate certain groups than others. German and Irish Americans (and my family is mostly German) over time became less exotic in the eyes of Americans, and were deemed fellow legitimate citizens. Other groups, such as gays and blacks, on the other hand have been excluded by a great many of their fellow Americans, regardless of their contributions. In such cases, the wait for civil rights has become too long, and government intervention is required to bring them into mainstream American society. Though I will be the first to concede, plenty of Americans believe strongly enough in equal rights that they had always accepted blacks and gays.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I don't know about your neck of the woods but where I live I'm not seeing any discernible persecution or exclusion of anyone, black and even gays included.
Maybe you need to move somewhere where there's more diversity and not so much hate and intolerance.
But then again without hate and intolerance liberals wouldn't have a purpose to rally around.......


Thanks to civil rights legislation, the treatment of black people has increased dramatically. And I dare say, it's rubbed off on the treatment of gay people. The undeniable fact is, though, gays and blacks are still targets of hateful bigots in the more culturally backward parts of this country, where the confederate flag is still flown with pride, and people demand that the government get out of their medicare.
And I think I've mentioned more than once that I reside in the Pacific Northwest, which by comparison, is pretty enlightened compared to other parts of the country.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer