The dystopian reality of 'inspiration porn'

Post Reply New Topic

I spoke with my city's former Democrat mayor.

He supports "government run health care".

However, he says Democrats oppose it because it will cost lots of jobs.

That's not an assumption, it is a well-evidenced and uncontroversial fact.

Speak for yourself.
I neither need nor want anyone else to do my thinking for me.
Only sheep need a shepherd.

Of course the insurance industry is there to help people. Shareholders are people.

I think that you have a twisted view of the left. You can't believe that they really want to care about strangers, or that their positions can be informed. Ask yourself, which side do you think Jesus would have been? A conservative telling people to pull themselves up and help only the people they know, or a progressive that would say help all of those in need, regardless of feeling responsible?

You kept saying why should you feel responsible for a stranger, and I think this is where there is a fundamental difference in thinking. It isn't about feeling responsible, it is about knowing people are in situations that they cannot just push themselves out of, or not all of them can. That there are circumstances we are not aware of, and most people want to feel valuable if given the chance.

If you think that there is an ocean difference between you and a person who entirely believes that they should never once help someone else, that only suckers help anyone in need, regardless of if you might kind of like them. Then what do you think is the difference between your position and people like myself? Do you think it is different because the strawman I created is simply selfish and can't empathise with anyone, but mine is foolish and uneducated on what helps? The thing is that the numbers are actually on my side, they prove that it is actually more economically viable to help fund a place for a homeless person to stay and help them find jobs, rather than not using that government money (or relying on individual donators). That every developed country outside of the USA, including my own, has publicly funded healthcare helps society as a whole. People are not going to end up homeless because they had to go to the doctor, or die because they cannot afford insulin.

Sure there are people on the left simply because it might benefit them more, like there as a professional politician against a rightwing person. But people like me are not having some random view of looking down on poor people, or hating on all rich white people. We may educate ourselves on systems that have disadvantaged groups in a way that could have a racial component, such as communities that are still affected by segregated schooling that happened generations ago. People cringe at someone bringing up the concept of white privilege, saying that they went through incredibly hard times where privilege would have come in use, not sparing a thought that perhaps other people might have it even harder.

Jesus befriended a prostitute and helped her without judging her. I can't think of any conservative Christians who would do that! So when you think about it, these right wing American 'Christians' are actually very anti-Jesus. They're quick to judge people for sinning (unless your name is Trump) and don't take a very charitable attitude towards the poor.

And then they wonder why so many people are turning their backs on God.

Religious people are very generous.

Turn on tv, and see all the TV religious evangelists asking for money.
Go to a church and they ask for donations right there.
I live next to a church and they continually have charitable events listed on their street sign.
Some religious people give "tithe" (10% of their income) to the church.

So is every decision you make the one that is best for your long term future? You’ve never eaten junk food, had a lazy day, chosen to treat yourself rather than save for retirement?

I’m not saying you don’t deserve autonomy. I’m a liberal. Autonomy is fundamental to my worldview, even if you make the “wrong” decision. But that model undeniably does not work when it comes to public works. These need pooled resources, including people working full time to properly understand the issue.

Correction: SOME religous people are very generous. But quite a few are hypocrites who don't really practice what they preach. And I can't think of any churches I know of that would welcome a prostitute with open arms without judging her with open stares and whispering about her behind her back.

Jesus seems to require you to admit fault (confess), before he welcomes you into his kingdom.

Pre-judging people as "bad" seems consistent.

The fact is many Christians would judge such a woman harshly and gossip about her behind her back even if she did admit her fault and confessed.

Just like they would a homosexual or an ex criminal.

I can probably count the number of Christians I know who don't do that on one hand.

Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.....are human.

And they do the same thing.

True...

I guess I'm pretty biased towards Christianity because its the religion I was raised under, and those other religions I would feel like a bigot for judging.

It reminds me of a joke from Will & Grace when Grace found out that an Iranian woman she hired (who was terrible at her job but used 'liberal guilt' to manipulate Grace out of firing her) was actually Jewish and she exclaimed "This is wonderful!! ! I'm Jewish too and I don't have to be tolerant of my own people! You're fired! See you at Temple!"

Actually, you are.


Liberalism is incompatible with autonomy as it necessarily requires the use of governmental force in order to extract resources and coerce behaviours from individuals in pursuit of collectivist ideals.
For example:



Sooo....
First, the assumption is made ('undeniably'? LOL) that cooperative goals can't be achieved voluntarily.
Second, it is assumed that the goal is actually desirable ie, for the 'collective good' aka 'public works'.
Third, said assumptioms are used as justification for theft of private property and/or forced compliance.
Lastly, a portion of the aforementioned stolen property is earmarked for the employment of a full-time cadre of bureaucrats whose job is to do our thinking for us.


Thanks....but no thanks.

Why not? If you've never done anything wrong, never so much as had an evil thought, what do you need salvation for? Salvation from what?

It's not so much confessing to every single bad thing you've ever done as it is acknowledging to yourself that the only way you can be worthy of heaven is if God chooses to make you worthy. If it's that important to you that God leave you alone, what sense would it make for God to drag you kicking and screaming into heaven? Wouldn't that just be another hell?

But I think that since Jesus died to erase the guilt of mankind, guilt isn't something anyone should have to live with. If I feel guilty about something, I try to be quick to ask why. If I've done something that would ultimately hurt me in some way, especially if it harms someone I care about, then I try to resolve the problem or apologize. If I'm simply being manipulated from someone's greed, envy, or hate, I just move on with life.

And that's the point I was getting at earlier. The poor homeless person on the street? I didn't steal his money or home. I don't even know the guy. I don't know why he's homeless or poor. But if I have a REASON to care, I might help him. Or not. But it's not for someone else to tell me what to do, what I should do, or how to think about it.

When it comes to welfare, I don't really mind that my tax money goes to help people who need help. But I'd have more peace of mind about it if I didn't have to wonder if that money was supporting behavior or morality I disagree with. So I think charities that specialize in one such area or another are superior to a free-whatever-for-all Santa Claus mentality. It's more democratic in that those who give have the option of deciding whether someone actually does have a need or actually does deserve the money or aid. If people are engaging in immoral and self-destructive behavior, "starving them out" metaphorically speaking might go a long way to bringing them back to their senses and inspiring positive change that will end their poverty.

Well said. All of it.


Yeah...question: Who decides what is "desirable," or what the "collective good" really is? In practice, not often the majority. That's not to say that all people are good and perfect and nobody ever needs protection. A justice system should reflect a society that protects EVERYONE from violence and corruption and takes violent, corrupt people well out of the picture. A lot of the time we have the issue of measures being put in place because of emergency situations--but then once an emergency has passed, there is somehow still a need for government intervention and wasteful programs.
So I tend to be suspicious any time the "greater good" is mentioned. I didn't say what the greater good is, and I think it's wrong to give up my rights for someone else's vision of what that is.


Exactly.

QFT.