(Feb 22, 2017 06:33 AM)Syne Wrote: (Feb 22, 2017 02:17 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: i had been at pains to avoid mentioning a few things because i did not wish to diverge into something that has the potential to take great emphasis from the basic points.
that said a few basic points have not been mentioned.
the glaringly obvious one is the moral shift.
the change from belief from seeking to create a system of government that assists ALL people
to a belief in a system that assists only those who have wealth.
THAT is the basic difference between left and right and for him to suddenly throw away his care for society and people means he now has no desire to create a society that values life.
only one that values money and wealth above life.
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.
Quote:i think that is such a big shift that it requires quite a strong focus.
what made him abandon his empathy ?
does it not seem ironic that now that he has abandonned his empathy that he is attempting to get others to show HIM empathy...
THAT will need to be explained 1st. however i beleive the likelyhood of having that critical formative question answered is EXTREMELY unlikely.
(it does occur to me that there may be potential substantial cultural confusion between basic political left and basic political right, and if that is so then please elaborate so i understand what YOU mean by political right as i am not very up on american vernacular political socio-anthropology.)
People often do need to assume their enemies are less than human ("abandon his empathy") to justify demonizing them completely. Remember, conservatives give the most to charity.
Quote: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
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.
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)
Feb 20, 2017 09:29 PM
