Understanding Leftist Mentality

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

You don't need reports or studies to know that if people are giving money for nothing, they have less incentive to work.

Why must private gain be the only incentive to work? Collective goals can be just as meaningful.

That being said, there are LOTS of cases of people who don't work because they don't want the alternative of trying to find work on their own, even if they are capable of it. Whether it's heroin addicts in Europe being given allowance by the government (not because they are addicts but because they are unemployed) or people in the US who don't want to milk the welfare system even though they have jobs,

I think you need to read Philippe Bourgois's In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. It's an ethnography of crack dealers in East Harlem in the late 1980s, and it does an excellent job of showing that it's not "laziness" but rather a cultural gap that, due to the laziness and ignorance and mean-spiritedness and greed of those in power and those who support them, they lack the resources to overcome, is responsible for the poverty and violence in the inner cities.

You can't assume that welfare will only be given to the truly needy because it never is.

It always is.

[Farnhamia]

And yet study after study shows that simply salary increases are not a way to motivate and retain workers.

Your last comment shows rather large chasm of ignorance.

You are sooo wrong. People move across the world for better salaries.

Then show us some numbers.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Well yeah. The rich don't work, they just leech off of others. I agree, we need to solve that problem.

Prejudice is not cool. You know people work hard to become rich

And people who work hard also don't become rich. It's luck, not anything special the "self-made" rich folk have done that makes them any more deserving than anyone else, that translates hard work into wealth.

[Norstal]

And yet study after study shows that simply salary increases are not a way to motivate and retain workers.

Your last comment shows rather large chasm of ignorance.

You are sooo wrong. People move across the world for better salaries.

Better living conditions.

[Khadgar]

Right. Good luck with that. I mean, just because it's failed every time it's been tried. Currency is the only basis for an economy beyond very small scale barter economies. By the time you reach actual industry level you need money.

Explain anarchist Catalonia then. It failed due to the civil war no?

Are you referring to the Spanish province that contains Barcelona? Or is there some other Catalonia I'm unaware of?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Sadly, I do not have figures. I'm sure that the majority of people don't abuse it. But there are definitely people that do. That the system is open for abuse warrants its abolishment. Doesn't it piss you off that drug users can leech off your income?

No. The prevalence of drug use among welfare recipients is a consequence of the fact that conservatives continue to insist on the falsehood of "individual responsibility" as an excuse for their lazy and mean-spirited and greedy unwillingness to do what they can to help these people overcome the cultural and social shortcomings that, due to no fault of their own, keep them from participating in mainstream society.

In other words, it's not their fault, so I don't begrudge them it--I begrudge people who think like you for pretending that their situation is somehow their own fault and using that as an excuse for refusing to do anything about it.

[Norstal]

Right. Good luck with that. I mean, just because it's failed every time it's been tried. Currency is the only basis for an economy beyond very small scale barter economies. By the time you reach actual industry level you need money.

Explain anarchist Catalonia then. It failed due to the civil war no?

K wtf does this have to do with the topic?

[Farnhamia]

Explain anarchist Catalonia then. It failed due to the civil war no?

K wtf does this have to do with the topic?

Apparently they tried to institute a non-money economy in the rural areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia#Rural_Collectivization

[Svobodu]

You are sooo wrong. People move across the world for better salaries.

Then show us some numbers.

You seriously need numbers or are you oblivious to the fact that people move to make better lives (more money,opportunities) for their families? Why else would people immigrate to capitalist nations?

[Farnhamia]

Then show us some numbers.

You seriously need numbers or are you oblivious to the fact that people move to make better lives (more money,opportunities) for their families? Why else would people immigrate to capitalist nations?

Yes, if only to make you back up just one of your statements with something other than "sadly, there are no studies." You said people move solely for salary increases. Now it's "better lives." Care to revise your opinion some more? Take your time.

[Khadgar]

K wtf does this have to do with the topic?

Apparently they tried to institute a non-money economy in the rural areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia#Rural_Collectivization

Sounds like the usual communist charlie foxtrot that ends in tears.

[Norstal]

Then show us some numbers.

You seriously need numbers or are you oblivious to the fact that people move to make better lives (more money,opportunities) for their families? Why else would people immigrate to capitalist nations?

I could've stayed back in Indonesia and become a business executive. Make a shitload of money. But I didn't because:

1. I'll probably get killed.
2. Porn is banned there. Porn. Is. Banned.

So I moved here.

Course, this is just an anecdote. And you're probably ignoring me right now anyways, but you haven't drawn up any statistics either, so hey, it's only fair.

[Svobodu]

You seriously need numbers or are you oblivious to the fact that people move to make better lives (more money,opportunities) for their families? Why else would people immigrate to capitalist nations?

Yes, if only to make you back up just one of your statements with something other than "sadly, there are no studies." You said people move solely for salary increases. Now it's "better lives." Care to revise your opinion some more? Take your time.

1. I said "sadly, I dont have figures" not they didnt exist.
2. Better lives are salary increases for people who are starving in third world countries.

So starving, impoverished people act/move to increase their salaries. You tell my why you think they move. Some people move to escape persecution, genocide, etc. but those are extreme cases. Why do most people move between the states in the US? For jobs and more money.

[Farnhamia]

Yes, if only to make you back up just one of your statements with something other than "sadly, there are no studies." You said people move solely for salary increases. Now it's "better lives." Care to revise your opinion some more? Take your time.

1. I said "sadly, I dont have figures" not they didnt exist.
2. Better lives are salary increases for people who are starving in third world countries.

So starving, impoverished people act/move to increase their salaries. You tell my why you think they move. Some people move to escape persecution, genocide, etc. but those are extreme cases. Why do most people move between the states in the US? For jobs and more money.

What I think isn't the point. You keep making statements and refusing to do even a little work to back them up.

[Thyce]

Cited Article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/ ... press.html

I have always wondered why ever time I spoke with someone on the left that they are getting increasingly more hostile towards disagreeing views. Furthermore, I tried to figure out why they always felt so entitled to leech off of American wealth while demeaning the very values that brought the wealth in the first place. That same wealth they seek to redistribute themselves. Claiming that as if by some magic that the wealth would still be there if these policies hadn't been enacted. Wealth that was somehow stolen from them. I have tried many times reasoning with them and am usually left with nothing more than base insults thrown at me attacking my character and them attempting to degrade me instead of refuting my arguments. I strive to understand why they are the way they are. That is until I read an article that finally put it all in to perspective for me. Here is a quote to give you an example:

"Conservative Liberal commentators often construe the liberal conservative approach as endorsing a victim mentality. Such a perspective is not entirely accurate. While victimhood may be a byproduct of the liberal conservative mindset, it is not liberals' conservatives' aim. Their aim, on the contrary, is power for the sake of power. Like children, they are driven by emotions, not principles -- fantasies, not realities. Considering such an outlook, it's no wonder that the young old are seduced by what they perceive to be a an easy route to renewed significance. All you have to do is mock and ridicule the country's principles, history, and founding ideals. Automatically, then, you are superior to the country itself.

Once in a position of power, you can secure that power for a lifetime by busying yourself with writing policy, by trying to make the world fair and equal, according to your fantasies. Of course, such a configuration of reality is impossible. There are, in a free society, only so many policies one can write. The solution? Erode freedom in the name of progress. Blame, criticize, and ridicule the existing structure by digging loopholes through the constitution. Cloud the thoughts of the electorate with irrational fears (global warming! Evil Muslims!) so that they will permit you to write more policies, which will then give you more power.

The country has been traveling in a downward spiral towards increasingly aggressive liberalism conservatism for the past several decades. To pull out of the tailspin, it will not be enough to remove keep President Obama from in office (though that will be without question helpful). The underlying trouble is that the young in each generation are brought up in a fundamentally broken system that predisposes them to adopt the liberal conservative philosophy. The corrosion of the family, the subversion of education, the eradication of God, and the promulgation of a cynical pop culture over-religious political discourse, sub-standard education, and mindless consumerism create in the young a yearning for personal significance old a good-old fashioned moral panic. This yearning is satisfied in such vapid criticisms of America as "Bush is an idiot," "corporations are evil," and "conservatives are racists." "Obama is a Muslim," "the government is evil," and "liberals are socialists."

What I find to be particularly amusing is how the left right tries to spout how people cannot be trusted and must be regulated by the government to ensure they do the right thing. But if people cannot be trusted to do the right thing, then how does one expect the people governing others to do the right thing? What makes them exempt from corruption? The answer is that they aren't as we have seen with all the Green Energy scandals from this administration oil and health insurance industry lobbying in Congress. Therefore any real regulation is laughable at best in my opinion and should be thrown out notion of a "free market" is something of a misnomer.

More interesting his how they attack and try to destroy the Judeo-Christian values that make up this country. Those same values that teach others to be virtuous. Values who hold individuals accountable for their actions and teaches everyone to do the right thing regardless of their belief. You'd think that the left would advocate for these values so others wouldn't have to be regulated. Instead they attack them and try to destroy them in an attempt to secure power for themselves, the state, and continue with their worship of the world as their all creator. Making the EPA the government sanctioned religion as they try to protect their 'creator'. Moralistic, sanctimonious, partisan bullshit.

Fixed that for you.

[Socialdemokraterne]

You're right. Initially a lot of people will suffer, but this is only necessary to rid them of their bad habits and their dependence while simultaneously encouraging new habits that create wealth. The answers I'm giving aren't instant pleasure or short term answers they're long term answers that are meant to be sustainable and profitable. In the long term people will learn to walk, but they can never learn to walk if they aren't allowed to fall.

Not everyone who finds themselves in need of welfare assistance has ended up in that position because of bad habits. Maybe they were suddenly injured, or laid off, or became seriously ill, or incurred a debt from a relative that they can't afford to cover. I can't see how such people can even be remotely blamed for their sudden state of need. You do realize that not every household has enough income to support the family inside, pay the bills, and establish a nice emergency fund on the side, right? That credit isn't free, and that people who are poor can reasonably be expected to have too low a credit rating to just go out and get a loan? That private charities couldn't possibly handle the burden you're trying to place on them? You understand that many people are poor not because they're stupid, but because that's the best they can do with what they've got?

No. You don't understand that at all, or you wouldn't be saying what you're saying.

Trust me it [anecdotal evidence] does [serve as evidence of widespread welfare abuse]. Also, obviously it's a personal experience, so you don't have to take it as evidence of anything if you don't want to.

The person giving the anecdote has too many unknowns to be dealt with for their testimony to be considered reliable, and besides, there is no evidence that your testimony is representative even if I take it to be true. Can you just not see the weaknesses of anecdotal evidence for trying to make a case that something is true on the population scale? I'll show you:

[Unsafe, but common use of anecdotal evidence]
1. I saw a German man punch someone in the face.
2. The audience assumes my argument is true because I'm an eyewitness.
Conclusion: That German man is assumed to have committed battery by the audience.

[Very unsafe, but also unfortunately a common use of anecdotal evidence]
1. I saw a few German men punching someone in the face.
2. The audience assumes I'm telling the truth because I'm an eye witness.
3. I use my experience to extrapolate that most, if not all, German men are unnecessarily violent.
4. The audience, while skeptical, takes me at my word because I said I actually saw German men committing violence.
Conclusion: German men are now stereotyped as violent thugs as a consequence of my extrapolation being trusted.

[Norstal]

1. I said "sadly, I dont have figures" not they didnt exist.
2. Better lives are salary increases for people who are starving in third world countries.

So starving, impoverished people act/move to increase their salaries. You tell my why you think they move. Some people move to escape persecution, genocide, etc. but those are extreme cases. Why do most people move between the states in the US? For jobs and more money.

What I think isn't the point. You keep making statements and refusing to do even a little work to back them up.

Well, if we had work or even capable of doing any, we wouldn't be here. *nods*

[Farnhamia]

What I think isn't the point. You keep making statements and refusing to do even a little work to back them up.

Well, if we had work or even capable of doing any, we wouldn't be here. *nods*

I love being a welfare queen, don't you?

[Norstal]

Well, if we had work or even capable of doing any, we wouldn't be here. *nods*

I love being a welfare queen, don't you?

No. I'd have to get a sex change to be a queen.

I'll have to do with Eternal Welfare Emperor.

[Socialdemokraterne]

...I'm just off-duty for the day.

[Nidaria]

Fixed that for you.

Do not copy my flag; you will make me look bad.

[Cill Charthaigh]

I don't think you quite understand Liberalism.
First off, you're trying to base it off the American definition of liberal, which is more or less anyone who isn't a Republican.
And you even misconstrue that!

You can be a non-liberal and non-Republican at the same time.

[Socialdemokraterne]

You can be a non-liberal and non-Republican at the same time.

You're a right-libertarian if I read your signature's endorsement of Ron Paul correctly. As a consequence, you're a non-liberal, non-Republican by the US's terminology, yes.

[New England and The Maritimes]

You are sooo wrong. People move across the world for better salaries.

Then show us some numbers.

10 million Filippinos, for one. 3.5 million of those move to the US, mainly in Nursing, where they can easily make three times their expected salary back home.

[Rick Rollin]

Except YOU DON'T GET TO SAY THAT YET.

Abolitionists couldn't be all "Slavery is bad. It ends now." because that attitude did nothing to advance their cause or build up a consensus on the matter. Similarly, pro-choice (or pro-life) people of today can't say "my side is right! History shall vindicate me!" today because, well, it's one of those a priori statements (think that's the word for 'em). They have no proof that their side is right, they just say it is and claim the other side is barbaric or backwards. This may be right by the standards of future society X years from now, but I don't think I have to begin to tell anyone about the problems of applying present-day morality to centuries-old situations do I? THAT'S what it seems like is being done a LOT and it only succeeds in getting heretofore pleasant and virtuous people pissed because people don't like people they perceive to be arrogant. (Apologies for any offense this may cause, but it isn't directed directly at you)

Edit: Imagine if you will, I said "Greed is right. Greed is good. Greed works. Compassion is actually wrong. It's barely even a real emotion anyways. To pretend it is only legitimizes the commies and pinko red idiots that undermine our great society."

Doesn't exactly help my case does it?

The problem being the pro-choice side has evidence on it's side, and the pro-lifers have emotional appeals only.

Explain. Last time I checked, morality was not a science.

(And before you call me a bigot for pointing out that your say-sos are meaningless, I'd like to point out that this is not a disagreement.)

You are sooo wrong. People move across the world for better salaries.

Anyone who is motivated by money is simply not human so "people" do not move across the world. Filth does.

*sigh* Everyone is greedy.

You don't need reports or studies to know that if people are giving money for nothing, they have less incentive to work.

Why must private gain be the only incentive to work? Collective goals can be just as meaningful.
*snip*

You can't assume that welfare will only be given to the truly needy because it never is.

It always is.

You are making us social liberals look bad.