quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

So under the 'Right to Life' perhaps the government should provide healthcare to those with chronic illness.

Absolutely. Makes sense to me.

except this has been explained to you before, partially by the contrast between "negative" rights and "positive" rights. our country was founded with the former at its core---that is, the things the government CANNOT do to you. that is in this case, since we have a right to life the government cannot just willy nilly take it, and further, governments are established so that other people cannot just willy nilly take it either.

it simply does not follow from having a right to life, that governments exist to provide for people in the way the left desires.

quote:

Taking care of the needy is akin to the example of a library.

quote:

Giving welfare to those who need it is, indeed rewarding them. They are not having to work for the benefits they are getting. They are not working to pay for the benefits they are getting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Am i the only one who doesn't feel much like celebrating this year.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Am i the only one who doesn't feel much like celebrating this year.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Am i the only one who doesn't feel much like celebrating this year.

I like my country alot and feel lucky to be born and living here, and I do feel patriotic to it but I have never celebrated its birthday. As it's just a country! I mean a non-living thing.

Yours is 4th July, ours is 9th August.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

Don't be foolish people are less important than houses and cars - that is the core message from many in the Senate and the unruly mob and is deeply ingrained in their mindset, philosophy etc I actually don't understand minds like that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Reward vs. Punishment

Penn's friend Tim was indulging a false dichotomy, or at least one that no one ever proposed. The Left has proposed that we provide sustenance and healthcare for people in need, that the purpose of government is the welfare of the people. How is that rewarding someone for doing nothing when forces beyond a citizen's control render him destitute? We glorify equal opportunity in the abstract but turn to victim blaming when someone is really down and out for reasons that are not clear to us. Libertarians do not impress me in their smug righteousness but maybe I just do not understand their thinking.

You say the left proposes providing sustenance and health care for people in need who were brought to that state by "forces beyond their control". 2 questions...is it only the people where "unknown" forces are in play? Or is it also those where "known" forces are in play? Forces not limited to LEGITIMATE physical or mental disabilities...legitimate reasons...but also forces such as laziness, gluttony, unwillingness to learn, addiction, etc.?

Are these punishable crimes? Are they attitudes made willingly from the cognitive functions of brain or do they result from social circumstances. How do we judge "unwillingness to learn?" Does such a state even exist in the human psyche that is not brain dead? Or must they be willing to learn what you approve of? And addiction? We know full well the neurochemistry of addiction. Do you suppose a person wakes up one morning and says, "You know what? I think I will lead a life of laziness, gluttony, addiction, etc?" Is that a premeditated condition for which the person ought spend time in the public stocks?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

all I see here is yet another macro difference between liberals and conservatives. the latter thinking people rise or fall by merit and effort and the former thinking everyone who falls is an innocent victim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

all I see here is yet another macro difference between liberals and conservatives. the latter thinking people rise or fall by merit and effort and the former thinking everyone who falls is an innocent victim.

so, the nutsuckers think you are shot and not shot by merit? You and the gob of nutsuckers actually think everyone who is on a good Samaritan program of the people is a lazy ne'er do well, who is out to fuck you out of your welfare check.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Reward vs. Punishment

Penn's friend Tim was indulging a false dichotomy, or at least one that no one ever proposed. The Left has proposed that we provide sustenance and healthcare for people in need, that the purpose of government is the welfare of the people. How is that rewarding someone for doing nothing when forces beyond a citizen's control render him destitute? We glorify equal opportunity in the abstract but turn to victim blaming when someone is really down and out for reasons that are not clear to us. Libertarians do not impress me in their smug righteousness but maybe I just do not understand their thinking.

You say the left proposes providing sustenance and health care for people in need who were brought to that state by "forces beyond their control". 2 questions...is it only the people where "unknown" forces are in play? Or is it also those where "known" forces are in play? Forces not limited to LEGITIMATE physical or mental disabilities...legitimate reasons...but also forces such as laziness, gluttony, unwillingness to learn, addiction, etc.?

Are these punishable crimes? Are they attitudes made willingly from the cognitive functions of brain or do they result from social circumstances. How do we judge "unwillingness to learn?" Does such a state even exist in the human psyche that is not brain dead? Or must they be willing to learn what you approve of? And addiction? We know full well the neurochemistry of addiction. Do you suppose a person wakes up one morning and says, "You know what? I think I will lead a life of laziness, gluttony, addiction, etc?" Is that a premeditated condition for which the person ought spend time in the public stocks?

In a post from you below, you ask the question about who is responsible for killing 5 workers on the railway: the train or the engineer. From your answer above, I'd say you believe it is the train. But I bet I'm wrong and...like most people, me included...you blame the engineer. He had a choice...

Just as obese people had an initial AND subsequent choices. Just as lazy people have a choice. Just as addicted people made an initial and subsequent choices til their ability to choose got drugged over by their addiction. Why is it you can see the engineer's choice and not fat, lazy and/or addict's choices? Willingness to learn is a recognition that if you want things, you have to learn how to get them. And again...choice comes into play...get them honestly or dishonestly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

what youre seeing there cd is yet another example of the liberals not being able to accurately describe the viewpoints of those on the right.

or mnottertroll's incessant inability to reason.

quote:

One other point that I find really interesting and important about Haidt's work is his findings on the ability of different groups to empathize across these ideological divides. So in his book (p. 287) Haidt reports on the following experiment: after determining whether someone is liberal or conservative, he then has each person answer the standard battery of questions as if he were the opposite ideology. So, he would ask a liberal to answer the questions as if he were a "typical conservative" and vice-versa. What he finds is quite striking: "The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as 'very liberal.' The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives." In other words, moderates and conservatives can understand the liberal worldview and liberals are unable to relate to the conservative worldview, especially when it comes to questions of care and fairness.