Understanding Leftist Mentality

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

people who can't afford to breed shouldn't!

Way to keep it classy...

He's right though people who can't afford to have children shouldn't breed. If you accidentally get pregnant and you can't afford to look after the child you're better off taking out a loan and getting an abortion.

Having a child is a lot of work. It takes time patience, resources and a lot of planning.

If person has a child that they can't afford than it is through no fault other than their own and they should rightfully so deal with the consequences themself without relying on public assistance that forces others to pay for her poor decision making

[Inexplicability]

What's the alternative? Letting the kids starve?

No, but having a child is a choice and not something everyone else is obliged to pay for - there is no sense in increasing benefits for people who choose to have another child.

I want a cat, can you and the rest of the taxpayers please stump up? (see how ridiculous that sounds)

It doesn't hurt the parents, it hurts the child. And yes, we should do something about the overpopulation of cats.

[Khadgar]

THe problem is that people often don't want to hire the mentally ill or handicapped, it isn't that they aren't capable, it's that people don't want them.

Well then that's a problem to be taken up by the legal system, not the government. There are laws that prevent discrimination, and one feels they have been discriminated against they can take legal recourse.

You realize of course that the government is the basis of the legal system? Also realize that the Americans with Disabilities Act is perennial target of conservative ire?

[Inexplicability]

Way to keep it classy...

He's right though people who can't afford to have children shouldn't breed. If you accidentally get pregnant and you can't afford to look after the child you're better off taking out a loan and getting an abortion.

Having a child is a lot of work. It takes time patience, resources and a lot of planning.

If person has a child that they can't afford than it is through no fault other than their own and they should rightfully so deal with the consequences themself without relying on public assistance that forces others to pay for her poor decision making

I agree that no kids should be born unless the parents have all the resources to take care of the kids. Kids are born anyway to parents who are incapable. We cannot euthanize them and there aren't enough foster parents. The children shouldn't be punished for losing the parent lottery. They still need food, education, supervision, and books.

[Socialdemokraterne]

He's right though people who can't afford to have children shouldn't breed. If you accidentally get pregnant and you can't afford to look after the child you're better off taking out a loan and getting an abortion.

Having a child is a lot of work. It takes time patience, resources and a lot of planning.

Actually, that's not a wholly unreasonable stance. People who are in need of welfare benefits are unlikely to be able to support more children than they already have, so it would serve the public's benefit and their own if they didn't have any more children until they were financially ready to shoulder the extra burden that entails. Offering contraception to welfare recipients seems to me to be a good strategy.

If person has a child that they can't afford than it is through no fault other than their own and they should rightfully so deal with the consequences themself without relying on public assistance that forces others to pay for her poor decision making

Careful. People might have children they can afford at the time but then fall into circumstances where they can no longer afford their family's size. Also, rape.

[Inexplicability]

THe problem is that people often don't want to hire the mentally ill or handicapped, it isn't that they aren't capable, it's that people don't want them.

Well then that's a problem to be taken up by the legal system, not the government. There are laws that prevent discrimination, and one feels they have been discriminated against they can take legal recourse.

When you're jobless and mentally handicapped I'm sure it's super easy to sue employers for discrimination!
^sarcasm

[Nidaria]

Way to keep it classy...

He's right though people who can't afford to have children shouldn't breed. If you accidentally get pregnant and you can't afford to look after the child you're better off taking out a loan and getting an abortion.

Having a child is a lot of work. It takes time patience, resources and a lot of planning.

If person has a child that they can't afford than it is through no fault other than their own and they should rightfully so deal with the consequences themself without relying on public assistance that forces others to pay for her poor decision making

Wrong, it is better to give birth and then give the baby up for adoption. I am already in an abortion argument in another thread, so do not bother to reply to this.

[Khadgar]

He's right though people who can't afford to have children shouldn't breed. If you accidentally get pregnant and you can't afford to look after the child you're better off taking out a loan and getting an abortion.

Having a child is a lot of work. It takes time patience, resources and a lot of planning.

If person has a child that they can't afford than it is through no fault other than their own and they should rightfully so deal with the consequences themself without relying on public assistance that forces others to pay for her poor decision making

Wrong, it is better to give birth and then give the baby up for adoption. I am already in an abortion argument in another thread, so do not bother to reply to this.

Do you know how shitty the foster care system in this country is?

[New England and The Maritimes]

He's right though people who can't afford to have children shouldn't breed. If you accidentally get pregnant and you can't afford to look after the child you're better off taking out a loan and getting an abortion.

Having a child is a lot of work. It takes time patience, resources and a lot of planning.

If person has a child that they can't afford than it is through no fault other than their own and they should rightfully so deal with the consequences themself without relying on public assistance that forces others to pay for her poor decision making

Wrong, it is better to give birth and then give the baby up for adoption. I am already in an abortion argument in another thread, so do not bother to reply to this.

No. It isn't. Abortion is the only right choice for anybody who wants it, in every case.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

You cited a work of fiction as evidence that welfare abuse is widespread in the United States IN REAL LIFE. What sort of a reaction did you expect? You further submitted information on two states' welfare systems, one state of which (Pennsylvania) had successfully implemented measures which substantially diminished abuse. So you really only submitted one state's worth of problems that remain worthy of note.

More than one state actually. Lets not forget though California is a very liberal state, so it's interesting to see how the liberal ideology is bankrupting the state.

And you seem to have conveniently forgotten that whistleblower protection helps to diminish this abuse, as is demonstrated by one of your own sources. I'm not debating whether or not welfare fraud exists. I'm asking you to demonstrate that it is pervasive. You failed to do so.

Sure it helped, but the costs of welfare is still raising and the amounts of abuse are still significant. If we scrapped the programs all together there would be 0 instances of fraud and abuse, because rather than the pain being spread out collectively poor decisions would strike the individual.

Don't. Personal accounts do not serve as evidence of pervasive abuse of the welfare system.

Yes they do

[Tmutarakhan]

You cited a work of fiction as evidence that welfare abuse is widespread in the United States IN REAL LIFE. What sort of a reaction did you expect? You further submitted information on two states' welfare systems, one state of which (Pennsylvania) had successfully implemented measures which substantially diminished abuse. So you really only submitted one state's worth of problems that remain worthy of note.

More than one state actually. Lets not forget though California is a very liberal state, so it's interesting to see how the liberal ideology is bankrupting the state.

Republican intransigence is what has crippled the state. An insane constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of the legislature just to enact an ordinary budget, so as long as the GOP holds at least 1/3+1 they can bring everything to a standstill, as they have insisted on doing year after year.

And you seem to have conveniently forgotten that whistleblower protection helps to diminish this abuse, as is demonstrated by one of your own sources. I'm not debating whether or not welfare fraud exists. I'm asking you to demonstrate that it is pervasive. You failed to do so.

Sure it helped, but the costs of welfare is still raising and the amounts of abuse are still significant.

Source for the "significant" abuse?

Don't. Personal accounts do not serve as evidence of pervasive abuse of the welfare system.

Yes they do

No, they don't.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

That's not even remotely accurate.

This. Mostly we're just kind of fed up with repeating the same exact arguments to the same exact people who refuse to listen to even one word of it every time, preferring instead to act as if their "questions" haven't been answered, or dispelled for the nonsense they are.

This.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

What's the alternative? Letting the kids starve?

No, but having a child is a choice and not something everyone else is obliged to pay for

Why not? It's not like there's any justification for unequal distribution of the fruits of social production in the first place, since no one's work or presence in the social economy is more valuable or important than anyone else's.

[Augarundus]

From the OP, this seems to be pretty shallow psychology. The argument, as I understand it, is as follows:

"Leftists make stupid-ass comments like "corporations are evil".
This is irrational.
Conservatives are rational, leftists are emotional."

Probrems:

1) This doesn't address leftist 'mentality'; that requires a psychological examination of leftist representation of the external (for example, why do leftists believe corporations are evil? What values underpin that notion, and why do leftists have these values- what has led them to adopt those as primaries for world-perceiving, etc.?). I don't have a degree in psychology, so my knowledge of the field is pretty amateur (I read articles on it- and a bit of Jung/Freud-, but I don't pretend that psychology is 'my bag' so-to-speak).

2) The first and second assertions are just that- assertions. It may be entirely possible that corporations are fundamentally evil institutions, global warming is an existential threat, etc. The former (that an institution is evil) requires a priori establishment of ethics and application of ethics to socially critical theory (I'm not giving the average leftist credit for this, because the average man with a political view is a fucking retard who doesn't give a shit about Socratic philosophy, but disagreeing with these views doesn't mean that leftists are "emotionally driven" and conservatives are "rational").

3) Again, this isn't really an examination of leftist psychology, which is something I'd generally be interested in (leftism is characterized, at its most basic form, by a belief in the value of egalitarianism- an examination of why egalitarianism is a value to leftists is something I'd like- both from a Socratic examination of whether or not it IS a value, and a psychological viewpoint of why leftists believe it is... I'm not getting either from this article/OP, which seems to just be a rant about how leftists hate everything that made America great- like God, child abuse, and supply side econ- and are a bunch of pansies, or something).

4) As for the final premise, that the irrationality of leftist positions (which I'll grant you, because I criticize the fundamental assumptions of liberal theory- humanism, egalitarianism, etc. from a Socratic methodology) necessitates the rationality of conservative positions, I don't really understand this. I know that you probably believe Jesus, Marine Corps, and Corporations are the shit, but I'm not seeing much a priori philosophy from the right (by which I mean, the "conservatives") either; God (particularly the Christian God; probably distinct even from the Jewish God, due to the distinctions between Roman/European culture and Hebrew culture) is the root of virtually every philosophical discussion (why is X a value? Because God) and, while you'll probably defend the legitimacy of this belief through some variation of Aquinas' "proofs", most (atheistic) philosophers will still hold that these assumptions are irrational and will tell you why (meaning there's a fair amount of people who think that the premises of right-wing social theory are as stupid as the premises of left-wing social theory- or "mentalities", if you prefer).

[The Black Forrest]

Indeed.

I have a friend who works in other countries. Clean water stuff.

He hates the Religious charities as they tended to look for the most destitute villages and portray them as the country.

Said villages rarely saw any usable assistance. He does like to tell one story of something useful. One village received several boxes of Bibles. They used them to start their cooking fires.

IIRC the Catholic church vehemently opposed efforts to curtail the spread of AIDS in Africa because it involved the use of...dun dun DUN...contraception. People having sex out of wedlock? Evil! Letting people die for some backwards dogma? Totally justified.

Well Duh! Abstinence solves everything. You don't have sex and you don't have to worry about abortions and aids.

[The Black Forrest]

1. The plural of anecdote is not data.
2. Sensationalist newstories like this are seldom substantiated, and usually serve to promote an editorial agenda, or get people to buy more copy, not actually inform.
3. WTF were you thinking in citing a work of fiction. Even if it were true, are you really going to begrudge someone on TANF benefits the occaisional bucket of fried chicken?

This really is despicable behavior, and I question whether or not you're actually serious and not a troll.

This is why I'm considering to not even bother posting sources anymore. Everytime I do they're greeted with the same "HOGWASH PROPAGANDA" response. Despite the fact that liberals post bias articles all the time.

Lets breakdown the facts presented in said articles though;

Millions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on vacations, strip clubs and casinos. This represents a huge misallocation in resources that could of been potentially invested privately into ventures that would of provided jobs or new innovations that could have increased the standard of living. It could of went anywhere, but instead the money was stolen (through taxes and inflation) and wasted.

Also, let me give you a personal experience of when I was a cash register attendee at a grocery store I worked for in my neighborhood. A good portion of the people who tried to use EBT were often rude, and unsightly. More often than not they used their welfare benefits to purchase cigarettes and other unnecessary items.

Well he does have a point. News is not like the old days where they would bury you with facts and data. It's about sensationalism. Hell Fox News made a fortune selling opinion pieces as News stories.

Posting a movie as proof was not exactly a good tactic.

Newsmax? For some reason I am getting thoughts of it being a credible as Fox. But, that is my scraggly memory so can't make the claim.

Finally, I would want to see their data and how they came to the conclusion of millions. Sounds like estimations.

Probably not too credible because even people who support welfare would want things fix if there was such fraud.

[Rick Rollin]

Wrong, it is better to give birth and then give the baby up for adoption. I am already in an abortion argument in another thread, so do not bother to reply to this.

No. It isn't. Abortion is the only right choice for anybody who wants it, in every case.

That argument can be used for any action.

"Sexual assault is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."
"Vandalism is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."
"Murder is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."

You cited a work of fiction as evidence that welfare abuse is widespread in the United States IN REAL LIFE. What sort of a reaction did you expect? You further submitted information on two states' welfare systems, one state of which (Pennsylvania) had successfully implemented measures which substantially diminished abuse. So you really only submitted one state's worth of problems that remain worthy of note.

More than one state actually. Lets not forget though California is a very liberal state, so it's interesting to see how the liberal ideology is bankrupting the state.

It has nothing to do with leftism.

And you seem to have conveniently forgotten that whistleblower protection helps to diminish this abuse, as is demonstrated by one of your own sources. I'm not debating whether or not welfare fraud exists. I'm asking you to demonstrate that it is pervasive. You failed to do so.

Sure it helped, but the costs of welfare is still raising and the amounts of abuse are still significant. If we scrapped the programs all together there would be 0 instances of fraud and abuse, because rather than the pain being spread out collectively poor decisions would strike the individual.

Standard classical liberal poor shaming.

Don't. Personal accounts do not serve as evidence of pervasive abuse of the welfare system.

Yes they do

Well once I saw the local church lynch a gay dude. Clearly this is true.

No, but having a child is a choice and not something everyone else is obliged to pay for

Why not? It's not like there's any justification for unequal distribution of the fruits of social production in the first place, since no one's work or presence in the social economy is more valuable or important than anyone else's.

Standard socialist rich bashing.

[Celephais]

No, but having a child is a choice and not something everyone else is obliged to pay for

Why not? It's not like there's any justification for unequal distribution of the fruits of social production in the first place, since no one's work or presence in the social economy is more valuable or important than anyone else's.[/quote]

Can't tell if you're lampooning the Left or being serious…

It doesn't hurt the parents, it hurts the child.

I see what you mean but that's why I specifically worded what I said to exclude families who already have kids and have got laid off or whatever. That is different to people literally being paid to have kids especially when they are in not-so-desirable circumstances.

And yes, we should do something about the overpopulation of cats.

Encourage immigration from nations that eat cats

[New England and The Maritimes]

No. It isn't. Abortion is the only right choice for anybody who wants it, in every case.

That argument can be used for any action.

"Sexual assault is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."
"Vandalism is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."
"Murder is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."

Except that what I said is true.

[Norstal]

No. It isn't. Abortion is the only right choice for anybody who wants it, in every case.

That argument can be used for any action.

"Sexual assault is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."
"Vandalism is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."
"Murder is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."

I summon Slippery Slope, in attack mode!

[Tmutarakhan]

No. It isn't. Abortion is the only right choice for anybody who wants it, in every case.

That argument can be used for any action.

"Sexual assault is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."
"Vandalism is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."
"Murder is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."

No, that doesn't work. The argument is that somebody who absolutely does not want to raise a child, shouldn't raise a child. This does not apply at all in the other cases.

[Rick Rollin]

That argument can be used for any action.

"Sexual assault is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."
"Vandalism is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."
"Murder is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."

Except that what I said is true.

Your argument is nonsensical, and your say so doesn't change that.

That argument can be used for any action.

"Sexual assault is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."
"Vandalism is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."
"Murder is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."

I summon Slippery Slope, in attack mode!

I'd rather live in a anti-life polity than a prohibitionist polity.

That argument can be used for any action.

"Sexual assault is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."
"Vandalism is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."
"Murder is the only right choice for anybody who wants to do it, in every case."

No, that doesn't work. The argument is that somebody who absolutely does not want to raise a child, shouldn't raise a child. This does not apply at all in the other cases.

But he has to prove it, and so do you.

[Tmutarakhan]

No, that doesn't work. The argument is that somebody who absolutely does not want to raise a child, shouldn't raise a child. This does not apply at all in the other cases.

But he has to prove it, and so do you.

No, value judgments aren't subjects of "proof". He is making a moral judgment that a person who doesn't want to raise a child is precisely the kind of person who *shouldn't* have a child; you can say that you have a different concept of "should" but it is not a question of some fact to be shown. Your claim that sexual assault, vandalism, or murder can substitute freely here is just nonsensical: no, nobody thinks that the kind of person who wants to assault others is the kind of person who "should" be allowed to do so, etc. It sounded as if you just didn't get the point of what was being said to you.

[Rick Rollin]

But he has to prove it, and so do you.

No, value judgments aren't subjects of "proof". He is making a moral judgment that a person who doesn't want to raise a child is precisely the kind of person who *shouldn't* have a child; you can say that you have a different concept of "should" but it is not a question of some fact to be shown. Your claim that sexual assault, vandalism, or murder can substitute freely here is just nonsensical: no, nobody thinks that the kind of person who wants to assault others is the kind of person who "should" be allowed to do so, etc. It sounded as if you just didn't get the point of what was being said to you.

He has yet to say why he believes life starts when the baby goes out the womb.

[New England and The Maritimes]

No, value judgments aren't subjects of "proof". He is making a moral judgment that a person who doesn't want to raise a child is precisely the kind of person who *shouldn't* have a child; you can say that you have a different concept of "should" but it is not a question of some fact to be shown. Your claim that sexual assault, vandalism, or murder can substitute freely here is just nonsensical: no, nobody thinks that the kind of person who wants to assault others is the kind of person who "should" be allowed to do so, etc. It sounded as if you just didn't get the point of what was being said to you.

He has yet to say why he believes life starts when the baby goes out the womb.

When "life starts" is completely irrelevant to the absolute fact that modern abortion is possibly the most important medical advance in human history. The simple fact is that a fetus is not a person and as such neither has nor deserves any rights whatsoever. If a fetus did have rights, those rights would not be a defense against a woman's right to decide what happens to her body.

I'm not going to debate this with you, because there is no debate to be had. I am right, your side is wrong. There's no view you can take about your positions that will make them any less wrong. You have no argument or standing, and really you should be glad anybody ever engages with you beyond pointing out that you are wrong.