posted
"Do you understand" is not meant to be condescending. It is me checking where we are. Nor is the remark about smaller steps. I was making a couple of bigger leaps there and acknowledging it.
Okay. I think that we live in a society that is still coloured by those ideas and that it is understandable rather than monstrous for people to believe that some people don't deserve help.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fugu, I think Franklin was great. You don't need to defend him. Again, I was just using him as an example of the pervasive attitude toward work that stemmed from Calvinist origins. Would you at least agree that the Pilgrims and Puritans were Calvinists and that they had a profound influence on the country?
I would consider it more convincing that you wanted to use him as an example if you didn't keep lying about what he said.
Yes, Calvinist thought had a major influence on this country -- as I explicitly said in the very post you're responding to. That doesn't mean that the founding fathers "were" Calvinist -- they weren't,, no matter how much you assert to the contrary, or that anyone influenced by Calvinist beliefs has the attitude that the poor deserve not to be helped (even if the person buys into the belief that it is mostly the poor's fault, it doesn't follow that they believe support for the poor should be removed).
I don't think you realize that in this conversation it is you who is drastically (and insultingly) misunderstanding everyone else, not the other way around. It isn't that if you could just make people understand your argument, you'd convince them.
You asserted that the sort of people who support this bill think poor people don't deserve assistance. That is drastically wrong. Are there some people who believe it? No doubt yes. But no, most conservatives (on this board or otherwise) do not believe it. Most Republicans (in Congress or otherwise) do not believe it. This is amply demonstrated by action -- for instance, charitable giving that helps the poor is high among Republicans, and that is incompatible with the belief you have ascribed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, have you not seen the signs, for one small example, complaining about government handouts?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You asserted that the sort of people who support this bill think poor people don't deserve assistance.
Discounting extremely weird and disregardable fringes, at worst you have 'poor people don't deserve government assistance, because charity will cover all real needs' — which still isn't the same thing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with "Charity will cover all Real needs." is how does a charity define a real need?
A religious charity is well within its right to define people in real need as those needy enough to sit through a sermon in order to get help, or to get baptized, or to switch to Islam, or to vote Republican, etc.
The reason that the government got into the welfare business was because charities were not able to help all those in need.
The question seems to boil down to which is preferable--having adults who are not really in need get welfare checks or having 1 baby in need starve. Do we go with a system that is too lenient, or to we put up with the cheats and lazy bums to make sure we help as many of the truly needy as possible.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: The question seems to boil down to which is preferable--having adults who are not really in need get welfare checks or having 1 baby in need starve. Do we go with a system that is too lenient, or to we put up with the cheats and lazy bums to make sure we help as many of the truly needy as possible.
Why shouldn't we help the cheats and the bums? Why assume they don't need it?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fugu, have you not seen the signs, for one small example, complaining about government handouts?
Perhaps you confuse believing there should be assistance given to the poor with disagreeing that particular government programs do it, or the government do it at all.
What's more, perhaps you confuse the some with the most, or the many.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why shouldn't we help the cheats and the bums? Why assume they don't need it?
I think the assumption is that the cheats and bums would benefit more from getting a job than from receiving a handout and that the handouts enable self destructive behavior. I do think there is at least some truth in this.
I think it is a genuine moral dilemma. Sometimes people will in fact step up when aid is refused. Other times, when aid is refused people end up homeless and die of exposure.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they have enough(decent food, safe shelter and so forth) via assistance without stepping up, should we care if they step up?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
That's a different question. You're making assertions about people's beliefs. Even if those beliefs are not the best beliefs (as nobody's beliefs are), you don't get to say they don't believe them. Don't try to change the question because you don't like how your previous argument looks.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really wish you would stop accusing me of far worse than I am accusing anyone of.
So are you saying that people, despite everything, think that private charity is enough? Are they stupid? I haven't been assuming they are. I think it a less charitable position than thinking that 400 years of ideology has coloured of perception of what it means to be deserving.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the assumption is that the cheats and bums would benefit more from getting a job than from receiving a handout and that the handouts enable self destructive behavior. I do think there is at least some truth in this.
I think it is a genuine moral dilemma. Sometimes people will in fact step up when aid is refused. Other times, when aid is refused people end up homeless and die of exposure.
Definitely. This is a vast, complicated question that involves complex interactions that can mean things that look like they help can really do more harm than good -- for instance, look at the emerging consensus that western aid to many countries in sub-Saharan Africa is net detrimental, despite its huge magnitude.
That complexity is why it is so harmful to misconstrue and demonize the positions others hold about such problems.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really wish you would stop accusing me of far worse than I am accusing anyone of.
So are you saying that people, despite everything, think that private charity is enough? Are they stupid? I haven't been assuming they are. I think it a less charitable position than thinking that 400 years of ideology has coloured of perception of what it means to be deserving.
Contained in here is, I think, the source of most of our confusion. People believe wrong things all the time, for a variety of reasons. There's nothing uncharitable about pointing that out. And I consider it far more charitable than saying they're evil.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really wish you would stop accusing me of far worse than I am accusing anyone of.
You're accusing people of having beliefs they would consider morally repugnant. Oh, and of being stupid:
quote:So are you saying that people, despite everything, think that private charity is enough? Are they stupid? I haven't been assuming they are. I think it a less charitable position than thinking that 400 years of ideology has coloured of perception of what it means to be deserving.
I think you've shown quite well that you feel it is necessary to make people you disagree with into idiots and horrible people, instead of dealing with their beliefs directly and forthrightly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Good lord. I am not demonizing those people and their positions I am excusing them.
You've said people hold positions they don't hold, that you consider morally much worse than the positions they hold, and tried to say that they must hold the positions they don't hold because they're logical extensions of their position (even though your argument in that direction has been ludicrous). That's basically the definition of demonizing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I haven't. Where did I call anyone stupid or horrible or evil? I have said repeatedly, that they are not horrible people. I have even given an example of how I share the attitudes I ascribe to them.
ETA: Man, talk about accusing someone of beliefs they don't hold. Should I feel demonized?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why shouldn't we help the cheats and the bums? Why assume they don't need it?
I think the assumption is that the cheats and bums would benefit more from getting a job than from receiving a handout and that the handouts enable self destructive behavior. I do think there is at least some truth in this.
I think it is a genuine moral dilemma. Sometimes people will in fact step up when aid is refused. Other times, when aid is refused people end up homeless and die of exposure.
Another issue is that we are genuinely dealing with scare resources here, in terms of public goodwill and the actual money involved when compared to the scope of poverty and disease throughout the world.
It makes sense to prioritize higher those that can genuinely be lifted out of poverty or to make a difference in fighting disease. (And prioritize lower, those who actually have some alternatives)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see any reason why wouldn't care unless the only marker of a successful society was the total people alive and even then if we only cared about a few years worth of the future. Though you've been coy about it I take it you don't think it's important?
posted
I don't think that work is a better marker of a successful society. Nor do I think that supporting the relative handful of people who would do nothing is enough to do us any real harm.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Mucus, are we really dealing with scarce resources?
Yes, especially in terms of goodwill. But money as well if we're not tracking how effective that money actually is.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not sure what you mean by effective? Are we effectively feeding, housing and clothing people? That could be pretty well tracked. Also, it would put money back into circulation - buying food, clothes, and so forth - so that is good, too.
But in terms of good will? I am trying to figure why that will isn't there.
(If it were just that people are evil, that would be easy.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Effective in terms of solving the problem, e.g. raising people out of poverty (permanently). If there are X people that require money periodically to sustain them and Y people that simply need money once, then it makes sense to prioritize the latter first, let them contribute to the economy, and then address X afterwards. And as The Rabbit points out, if it turns out that the people in group X can better sustain themselves with a job anyways, then its a win-win.
As for goodwill, it should be fairly obvious that there is a fairly limited supply of goodwill for welfare and foreign aid. (Maybe we can figure out how to deliver those in bomb form)
Edit to add: Here's an example, fugu has pointed out that huge amounts of aid in Africa are detrimental. Assuming thats true, throwing more money at the problem not only makes the problem worse, but it reduces the likelihood that people will contribute to future programs that actually might be beneficial.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Where did I call anyone stupid or horrible or evil?
Your description of conservatives preferring to see a person starve than receive a handout (not the version you applied to yourself, which was very different) was horrible and evil. (I am saying that what you described was horrible and evil, not that you were.)
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see any reason why wouldn't care unless the only marker of a successful society was the total people alive and even then if we only cared about a few years worth of the future.
I can think of many other measures of "success" such as happiness and health. These measures are, incidentally, high in societies with substantial welfare programs, universal health care, etc.
Clearly there must be some economic productivity for a society to thrive, but I don't know that productivity should be a universal measure of success.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. I haven't. Where did I call anyone stupid or horrible or evil? I have said repeatedly, that they are not horrible people. I have even given an example of how I share the attitudes I ascribe to them.
Look at the post of yours people keep referencing where you falsely describe people as holding a position you find morally repugnant! Look at your post not far above this, which says people are either stupid or hold a position that you find morally repugnant! Read your own posts! I would keep quoting them, but apparently that doesn't make you read them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I was aking if you thought they were stupid. I think that while lots of people believe things that are clearly not true, sometimes there are reasons.
If I thought that people who hold the position I suggested were morally repugnant, I would have to find almost everyone and myself just as morally repugnant. There are millions of people starving that I do nothing about. I, if it comes down to it, would rather people starve than than give up various luxuries. For example. That, if anything, should be more morally repugnant than our cultural inclination to be angry when people get things we don't think they deserve. What it isn't is as easily tapped into by politicians who want to cut social programs.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are they stupid? I haven't been assuming they are. I think it a less charitable position than thinking that 400 years of ideology has coloured of perception of what it means to be deserving.
You give only two possibilities: stupidity, or having the position you find morally repugnant. You have excluded the position many people specifically state they hold (as I had just pointed out): that charity for the poor is important, but not the business of government.
How else should your statements have been interpreted? What possibility do you allow for in the post other than stupidity or holding a position contrary to the one people state (and act as) they hold?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think "would rather let people starve than have to government help them' is less repugnant?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think "would rather let people starve than have to government help them' is less repugnant?
Try to consider if maybe there are other options. I don't hold out much hope, despite their mention in this thread, but maybe it'll happen.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kmmboots, I don't think I know what you actually are trying to say. But when everyone in the thread thinks you're demonizing the opposition, you shouldn't be trying to explain why that isn't what you said. You should be trying to figure out why the wording you used gave everyone that impression. And then not use that wording again.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think "would rather let people starve than have to government help them' is less repugnant?
For pity's sake. That's not what they believe. They believe that having the government help them* will lead to more people starving in the long run.
I'm not saying it's a good argument, or a belief that makes a whole lot of sense. I'm not asking you to agree with that-and I don't think anyone else is either. All I'm asking you to accept is that this is what they believe.Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I am saying that it makes no sense for an intelligent, informed person to believe that without something else going on. I believe they are as intelligent and have the same motivation and ability to be informed as anyone else. So why?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And I am saying that it makes no sense for an intelligent, informed person to believe that without something else going on.
This is what it always comes down to with you: refusing to believe that people can possibly believe what they SAY they believe.
Your lack of imagination and empathy are really rather impressive.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I am saying that it makes no sense for an intelligent, informed person to believe that without something else going on. I believe they are as intelligent and have the same motivation and ability to be informed as anyone else. So why?
So why? You've had a few examples of why someone might believe such a thing in this very thread, recently. Your response to those examples is to suggest they're probably not intelligent, informed people, or that there's something else going on.
My initial reaction to Hobbes's post was to think he was being a little thin-skinned, but then I reasoned that everyone's got a different threshold for what bothers them, and (of course) it's his decision, obviously. Then I thought about it for a moment and realized, in this discussion - with these participants, and I thought at the time of you particularly - that his reluctance made more sense. I didn't say so because that'd be an uncalled for, insulting thing to say, and I wasn't sure I was right anyway.
I didn't expect to see his reluctance be proven so accurate so clearly so quickly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is saying that I assume that someone is intelligent the same as suggesting they are not intelligent? How is asking why someone believes something the same as saying they don't believe it? ETAF I've read over my exchange with Hobbes. I was neither insulting nor did I suggest that he was heartless. It would have been nice to have been treated with as much restraint.
posted
You haven't asked if they believed it. You've stated they are either lying about what they believe or are stupid (if you want, I can quote where you say that again, but it seems useless).
Whatever, this is useless. Rivka's observation is extremely accurate, unlike your ability to remember what you've written.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I am saying that it makes no sense for an intelligent, informed person to believe that without something else going on.
There's the problem right there -- your refusal to accept that it's possible for good, intelligent, informed people to hold certain views that you disagree with.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, boots has said 'there must be something else going on' for someone who is intelligent and informed to believe thus and so. That's not quite saying, "You're lying," but it requires about as much extra leaping as does the whole 'if they don't prosper they're lazy and unworthy according to these beliefs' as is going on.
I know you think you weren't insulting. But you have said it doesn't make sense for someone who is intelligent and informed for someone to believe in ways they have described themselves as believing in this thread, recently. Furthermore they've given reasons why they believe some of these things. But you still say there's no reason for them, if they're intelligent and informed, to believe that way-unless there's something else going on.
Given what you're actually saying, and given what you started saying - that these people would rather see people starve than they get what they don't deserve - you're being treated with quite a lot of restraint.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure how "you say you hold certain beliefs but you really don't" could be anything other than an accusation of lying, but fair enough. Replace "lying about what they believe" with "really believe something they say is not what they believe, which would be amoral according to what they say they believe".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When people looking at the same data reach wildly incompatible conclusions there has to be some reason for it. That doesn't mean I doubt that they are coming to the conclusions they say they are.
So "starve" is the word that is such an obstacle? Fine. I retract "starve". How about "go hungry" or "suffer from malnutrition"?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I am saying that it makes no sense for an intelligent, informed person to believe that without something else going on.
There's the problem right there -- your refusal to accept that it's possible for good, intelligent, informed people to hold certain views that you disagree with.
Is it a problem to necessarily consider people, perhaps, 'good, intelligent, misinformed' if they hold a view that you, with a fair degree of research into it, find to be fundamentally bogus on one or more levels?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When people looking at the same data reach wildly incompatible conclusions there has to be some reason for it.
Yes. The reason is that people are different with different experiences, and those different experiences have led them to expect different outcomes from the same stimulus.
That does NOT mean either one is wrong or evil. It doesn't mean either one is stupid.
Assuming that not only one of you must be wrong/evil or stupid, but that it MUST be the other person because of course YOUR experiences are the only true ones, is a serious problem.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I thought people were merely stupid or heartless or evil, or morally repugnant, or even misinformed that would be an easy answer. I wouldn't be bothering to have this conversation. There would be no reason to ask why. Why is this country, peculiarly among developed nations, so reluctant to take care of our poor, ill, and elderly? What is different about us from France or Germany or Ireland or Canada or Sweden that makes this such a problem? Since I don't think that half our population is more heartless, or stupid, or selfish, or evil, or misinformed, it must be something else.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
