Feb 22, 2017 09:44 PM
(Feb 22, 2017 01:50 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ](Feb 22, 2017 06:33 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]It's only bigoted, partisan claptrap that so narrowly stereotypes opposing political parties, and complete irrational nonsense that someone has to so drastically change just to switch party affiliation. You obviously know nothing of conservatives than what you read in wantonly leftist sources.
just for arguement sake outline why religous conservatives(or as some call them conservatives) attach morality to their primary political model as an absolute ?
is not the nature of the beast geonphobic without secular governance ?
a note of simple mathamatics for debate.
leftist sources like european countrys which have no price per entry of health care systems which show a better saving of cost to the country over all with a far greater level of health service delivery and outcome.... the simple math shows its fairly easy to show which is cheaper.
countrys like sweden, norway, denmark, switzerland... do you define them as communist/leftist countrys ?
measured by quality of life & life expectancy scales that are globally recognised...
is there a liberal intollerance to lack of health care for citizens ?
is there a conservative intollerance to lack of health care for citizens ?
is there any morality that goes along with that as a governing process that is deemed to be bi-partisan compulsory indoctrination ?
<> note i hesitate to include too much in one response however,
2 other points
Do some people completely divorce their personal values from their political choices? Seems schizophrenic.
European healthcare statistics never account for the taxation necessary for a socialized healthcare system (nor the maintainability of such systems and their parent economies), which comes out of the peoples' pockets and should be considered with healthcare costs.
Most of Europe is to the left of the US, yes.
There is a conservative resistance to government meddling in free markets, which reduces competition, innovation, and quality while raising costs. The US has been hindered by this for a long time. More government intervention only trades raising costs for raising taxes. Liberals seem happy to grow government...on the backs of its people.
Quote:Quote:People often do need to assume their enemies are less than human ("abandon his empathy") to justify demonizing them completely.i wonder if the term "enemy" tells us a little of the assumed nature of the situation ?
war showing humanity to its enemys is a bit of an oxymoron so maybe you need to frame your point in a different light.
i do not wish to put words in your mouth.
Do you mean "political opponent" ? because i certainly do not demonise those who have opposing political opinions.
i never have.
however those who have opposing moral view points, for instance beleive in torturing people and bribery as acceptable institutionalised concepts, then yes, i would outline them as an enemy(of a peaceful society) to society whom they seek to torture and bribe(financially extort) for their own personal macinations.
probably a good point for some learned scholar to look at a paper on what connections(motivators & enablers & direct causatives) bribery[institutionalised] has with violence in(upon) society.
If you're claiming your political opponent inherently lacks human empathy, you're characterize him as an enemy. If you assume all conservatives lack empathy, you definitely are demonizing them. No idea what specific bribery or torture you're talk about.
Quote:Quote:Remember, conservatives give the most to charity.Do they ?
i am unaware of the nature of your measure of realative comparatives.
if you equate non profit organisations with giving to charity then we have a disparity in termanology to what "charity" is.
i see vast amounts of free labour given by working class people to charitys through church groups, volunteer groups, civic work groups, clubs & organisations who are pro secular inclusion(this is different to american conservatism?)
<> note the malaise of (definiative) termanology of american political group names escapes me(as i mentioned in my previous post and highlighted it).
a charity that is set up but never gives any money to actual poor is still a charity by many peoples definition on paper.
a charity that pays for 5 star fees for people to get into exclusive country clubs is still a charity giving large amounts of money.
if in fact its actually helping th epoor directly or is counter claimed to be trickle down that tends to negate from teh terms used to calculate the direct charity process as a nature of giving to poor rather than using the word "charity" to mean simply giving away.
i.e Bill gates (who is doing amazing things with vaccines[ & someone whom i respect profoundly] just to name a sinlge thing) if he was to give 5 billion dollars to a billionaire some might want to call that charity for their own personal agenda.
having a debate about literary use and language only serves to deliberately avoid the real nature of what charity supposedly is.(though i am guessng that will be a hurdle in its self here)
There is no disparity of definition. Freely giving to a cause, any cause, without a personal return of goods or service, is charity. Seems you're just happy to assume churches don't help anyone. That's your own bias. No, Bill Gates simply giving to a billionaire would be a gift, not charity.