Understanding Leftist Mentality

[Laerod]

:blink:

So starvation is acceptable?

Starvation was never mentioned. Limited welfare systems could feed children and the elderly. Private charity could help the rest, as not everyone wants to give away money to people who watch television and eat hamburgers all day.

And? Since when has not liking what your taxes pay for ever mattered? A lot of Americans probably don't like that the South is getting subsidized. Do we get to stop that too?

[Celephais]

It is, yes. If you think taking a fraction of someone's money is worse than letting people starve then you need to get your moral compass fixed.

That's a false dilemma; in the UK for instance we've long had a safety net so that if you have a run of bad luck or ill health then if the worst comes to the worst you won't starve; the overwhelming majority of people agree this is a good thing, regardless of party politics, but this is quite a far cry from the endless dependence-causing, get-paid-for-casual-bastardy programmes favoured by leftists; we had so many new taxes and laws brought in under Labour and has it done any good to the lower strata of society… has it hell.

I daresay only one of my governments did this, and it was a conservative one.

Are you Canadian?

[The Black Forrest]

So starvation is acceptable?

Starvation was never mentioned. Limited welfare systems could feed children and the elderly. Private charity could help the rest, as not everyone wants to give away money to people who watch television and eat hamburgers all day.

Welfare is already limited. You don't live the high life(well speaking for the US).

Charity solving the rest is a myth. It can't keep up with demand.

Now your ignorance.

Seriously hamburger and TVs? You probably belive the myth of the welfare queens.

[Norstal]

h, I'd say the opposite is true for some liberals. But, whilst both sides do make horrible jokes, leftist/liberal jokes are not as offensive. Probably due to that PC thing conservatives tend to hate.

Eh, that can backfire into the phenomenon of the (as an example) extremely left wing reddit-type atheist who only harps on about 'acceptable' targets and thus leaves a lot of humour on the table. Any form of 'political correctness' (and the much weaker analogue among crazy Evangelical types and the like) has acceptable targets and unacceptable targets; it's never about being nice to everyone.

Or what they call PC, I call "societal conventions."

Oh no. Oh no. Not the same at all. I only wish local council type busybodies and student unions stuck to the conventions of society.

I know, but what I noticed is that the extreme right don't actually have targets at all, which is worse. As I noted, Rick Rollin should be part of the right (a quick analysis of his post history), but yu-gi still terms him as the left.

It's just weird to me.

[Nidaria]

Starvation was never mentioned. Limited welfare systems could feed children and the elderly. Private charity could help the rest, as not everyone wants to give away money to people who watch television and eat hamburgers all day.

Welfare is already limited. You don't live the high life(well speaking for the US).

Charity solving the rest is a myth. It can't keep up with demand.

Now your ignorance.

Seriously hamburger and TVs? You probably belive the myth of the welfare queens.

According to http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html, welfare pays more than many other jobs. What is more, people can take a part-time job to receive even more money. I am not against the abolition of welfare, I simply do not want it wasted on people who do not need it (like twenty year-old couples). With about half the population receiving some sort of funding from the government, socialism is pulling us down into bankruptcy.

[Laerod]

It is, yes. If you think taking a fraction of someone's money is worse than letting people starve then you need to get your moral compass fixed.

That's a false dilemma; in the UK for instance we've long had a safety net so that if you have a run of bad luck or ill health then if the worst comes to the worst you won't starve; the overwhelming majority of people agree this is a good thing, regardless of party politics, but this is quite a far cry from the endless dependence-causing, get-paid-for-casual-bastardy programmes favoured by leftists; we had so many new taxes and laws brought in under Labour and has it done any good to the lower strata of society… has it hell.

Do list some. I'm horribly unfamiliar with the British welfare system.

I daresay only one of my governments did this, and it was a conservative one.

Are you Canadian?

German-American.

[Slaytesics]

Apart from the Christianity stuff I do agree with you OP, awesome post.

I do indeed yearn for personal significance by tearing down the country I claim to love, yes sir. Fucking America, with it's liberal democracy and it's bill of rights and shit. Burn it! Burn it all!

VIVA LA RUSSIA! LONG LIVE DEAR LEADER OBAMA!

[The Black Forrest]

Welfare is already limited. You don't live the high life(well speaking for the US).

Charity solving the rest is a myth. It can't keep up with demand.

Now your ignorance.

Seriously hamburger and TVs? You probably belive the myth of the welfare queens.

According to http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html, welfare pays more than many other jobs. What is more, people can take a part-time job to receive even more money. I am not against the abolition of welfare, I simply do not want it wasted on people who do not need it (like twenty year-old couples). With about half the population receiving some sort of funding from the government, socialism is pulling us down into bankruptcy.

Ahh cato. They like to "misrepresent" their numbers.

Every look at the cost of living in Hawaii?

My sister went to school there and dairy was very expensive.

Numbers sound nice but notice they don't break down the cost of living to measure against the numbers presented.

Also the study is 16 years old.

[Nidaria]

According to http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html, welfare pays more than many other jobs. What is more, people can take a part-time job to receive even more money. I am not against the abolition of welfare, I simply do not want it wasted on people who do not need it (like twenty year-old couples). With about half the population receiving some sort of funding from the government, socialism is pulling us down into bankruptcy.

Ahh cato. They like to "misrepresent" their numbers.

Every look at the cost of living in Hawaii?

My sister went to school there and dairy was very expensive.

Numbers sound nice but notice they don't break down the cost of living to measure against the numbers presented.

Also the study is 16 years old.

Tell me then whether we should give free food and money to those who are able to work but choose not to.

[The Black Forrest]

Ahh cato. They like to "misrepresent" their numbers.

Every look at the cost of living in Hawaii?

My sister went to school there and dairy was very expensive.

Numbers sound nice but notice they don't break down the cost of living to measure against the numbers presented.

Also the study is 16 years old.

Tell me then whether we should give free food and money to those who are able to work but choose not to.

Well? Usually the ones complaining about social programs think most people don't want to work.

[Nidaria]

Tell me then whether we should give free food and money to those who are able to work but choose not to.

Well? Usually the ones complaining about social programs think most people don't want to work.

You evaded my question. Answer it.

[Laerod]

Ahh cato. They like to "misrepresent" their numbers.

Every look at the cost of living in Hawaii?

My sister went to school there and dairy was very expensive.

Numbers sound nice but notice they don't break down the cost of living to measure against the numbers presented.

Also the study is 16 years old.

Tell me then whether we should give free food and money to those who are able to work but choose not to.

So show us that those able to work choose not to.

[The Black Forrest]

Well? Usually the ones complaining about social programs think most people don't want to work.

You evaded my question. Answer it.

How can I answer a question without foundation?

How do you measure people who don't want to work?

[Nidaria]

Tell me then whether we should give free food and money to those who are able to work but choose not to.

So show us that those able to work choose not to.

Never once did I claim that those who are able to work but cannot find work choose not to work. You are attempting to evade my question, but I shall not let you. This is a metaphorical question. Would you give welfare to those who are able to work but choose not to?

[Celephais]

Do list some. I'm horribly unfamiliar with the British welfare system.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... ories.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/electio ... go-up.html

off top of my head

Basically, tax rises don't actually do much for people and IMO are counter productive because once the state starts providing more than the basics (ie, you're ill and out of work, so you get disability allowance or unemployment benefit while you look for work - that is fair) it disincentivises work and encourages dependence. The unsurprising outcome is that Britain is widely known to have the worst family life in Western Europe and a huge number of social problems comparable to American inner cities.

German-American.

Clinton was a Republican? Obama is? Hell - JFK and his "military advisors"?

[Laerod]

So show us that those able to work choose not to.

Never once did I claim that those who are able to work but cannot find work choose not to work. You are attempting to evade my question, but I shall not let you.

Evade the question? Why debate the issue of handing food to those who choose not to work when they can if it's not actually a widespread phenomenon to begin with? To do so would just smear those on welfare without much choice in the matter.

[Trotskylvania]

Had to look up "jimmies' in the online urban dictionary. My hands aren't anywhere near your donut sprinkles or condoms. So quit with the African-American jail "saggin" fashion, 'cuz I ain't interested.

Let me explain it to you then.

You can accuse me of being "easy to arouse" once you get your metaphorical hands off my cock.

You know, most folk might have gotten a kick out of being compared to a top-of-the-food-chain wild predator, or even laughed at the zombie reference. A staunch liberal is a firm believer in the justness of their cause and the eventual success of their belief system. You look seem to look at such comparisons as if I'd called you a child molester. Really, it ain't that dirty unless you have a guilty conscience.

Most folk don't know your history. Even then, most folk don't find being accused of wanting eat the other side to be a flattering accusation.

I'm not a liberal, must less a staunch believer in the cause or the eventual success of any belief system. And even if I were, I could still see the stupidity of comparing your political opponents to predators, especially when the base of your party are rather enthusiastic about exterminating problem species so they don't go after their calves.

Thank you for glossing over your lie.

No, I don't want those predators eliminated. I don't even want liberals liquidated. My plans for you are even more horrible. I want you to live long enough to the point where you evolve into conservatives.

Your partisan stance is well known, YGO. Quit deflecting. It's not a lie. You're the biggest partisan hack on NSG. You've always been. And frankly, there's two possibilities. Either you're getting paid to do this, as parties tend to do to spread messages through social media. Or you're a fool doing something for free that you could quite easily be paid to do.

If you didn't think that this was a war against implacable foes, you wouldn't have used the predator or zombie metaphors. Nice backpeddle. I thought your side didn't believe in evolution anyway...

[The Black Forrest]

So show us that those able to work choose not to.

Never once did I claim that those who are able to work but cannot find work choose not to work. You are attempting to evade my question, but I shall not let you. This is a metaphorical question. Would you give welfare to those who are able to work but choose not to?

So you find one person who abuses the system and we should cancel it?

[THE NEW NEWLY UNITED STATES]

*sees first paragraph*

Oh god not another stereotype.

[Cronos Republic]

Yeah I do not really have a liking of leftists but I do not think this is right. I disagree with liberals on every (C'mon let's face the facts) but I do not agree with this. This is definitely a form of liberalism but make up maybe 5% of all liberal thinkers in the US.

[New Nassrau]

oh god not another one of these

[Aorum]

My father taught me that people expect everyon to be like them. If someone tells you that people are bad and need to be regulated, you can bet your bottom pound sterling that they themself are a bad person. If someone advocates de-regulation, then that is near as damn it proof that they are a decent human being.

Your father is an idiot. Seriously.

That's an argument that sounds good on the surface, but once you take a second to think about it, falls apart under it's own massive idiocy. Let's take it seriously, just for shits and giggles. According to your father, conservatives (in America), clearly want a huge military so they can invade conquer and pillage. Wait, that's actually fairly true. Huh. Well, check the other end of the spectrum. By his idiology, liberals want to regulate capitalism because if it were unregulated then they themselves would rob everyone blind. If that were the case, why would they make it illegal? Why wouldn't they deregulate the hell out of industry so they could steal? Why criminalize that which is their supposed goal? That's just idiotic.

Because they're not completely evil.

[Laerod]

Do list some. I'm horribly unfamiliar with the British welfare system.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... ories.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/electio ... go-up.html

off top of my head

Ok... Could I get a real source? You've got an opinion and a projection there... Neither prove your point.

Basically, tax rises don't actually do much for people and IMO are counter productive because once the state starts providing more than the basics (ie, you're ill and out of work, so you get disability allowance or unemployment benefit while you look for work - that is fair) it disincentivises work and encourages dependence. The unsurprising outcome is that Britain is widely known to have the worst family life in Western Europe and a huge number of social problems comparable to American inner cities.

These claims require sourcing.

German-American.

Clinton was a Republican? Obama is? Hell - JFK and his "military advisors"?

Haha. Moving goalposts:

I'll never 'get' leftists - your government has gone and spent loads of cash on pointless military adventures in the Middle East, and you still think that the government can be trusted with people's earnings more than they themselves can!

You could argue that both Clinton and Obama were involved in the Middle East, but that their involvement was pointless is debatable and the costs were nothing compared to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kennedy, on the other hand, was not engaged in any wars in the Middle East. As such, my point that so far it's only been my conservative government that did this stands.

[Nidaria]

Never once did I claim that those who are able to work but cannot find work choose not to work. You are attempting to evade my question, but I shall not let you. This is a metaphorical question. Would you give welfare to those who are able to work but choose not to?

So you find one person who abuses the system and we should cancel it?

Your ignorance and inattention astounds me. I never said we should cancel the welfare system, I said we should not give resources to that "one person who abuses the system". If he does not need it, he should not receive it.

[Aorum]

Your father is an idiot. Seriously.

That's an argument that sounds good on the surface, but once you take a second to think about it, falls apart under it's own massive idiocy. Let's take it seriously, just for shits and giggles. According to your father, conservatives (in America), clearly want a huge military so they can invade conquer and pillage. Wait, that's actually fairly true. Huh. Well, check the other end of the spectrum. By his idiology, liberals want to regulate capitalism because if it were unregulated then they themselves would rob everyone blind. If that were the case, why would they make it illegal? Why wouldn't they deregulate the hell out of industry so they could steal? Why criminalize that which is their supposed goal? That's just idiotic.

@_@; Could you have not made that more I dunno...simple? For instance, most conservatives tend to favour traditional and religious values. So therefore promoting the need to attend church every sunday is a sign that they have something they need to repent. =P

With you 100% on that one, hence why I detest conservatism.