• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do far right Conservatives/Libertarians lack empathy?

Do those on the far right lack empathy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 26.2%

  • No

    Votes: 62 73.8%
  • Total voters
    84
  • Poll closed .
I don't think it is a lack of empathy so much as it is a willful stubbornness to rationalize their own contradictions, manage unrealistic expectations, being honest about their questionable motives, and a genuine misunderstanding of economics, justice, and human behavior.

These are people who would agree that what transpired with the credit default swap crisis of '08 was without question completely unethical but not illegal. Therefore justifiable and acceptable.

These are people who think that we live in some sort of paleolithic era in which if you can't provide for yourself; food, shelter, and in today's world HC, and education than you're just weak and should die off -- if you can't get your share of charitable giving to sustain yourself.

These are the same people who can't understand the exploitive nature of capital toward labor, that labor is a commodity and like all commodities needs to be acquired for the lowest cost possible. It's the dehumanizing nature of Capitalism and liberalism for that matter. (in every possible definition of the word)

Of course, these are the same people who will give plenty to charity but would just as soon kick the bum on the street in the eye before they would give him a quarter.

So, in short, no I don't think it's a lack of empathy. Claiming that only dehumanizes them and gives them an out. They choose to be the way they are. They can choose to change.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Liberals think they get to claim charitible intent when they promote policies under which government takes by force from some to give to others. Conservatives think it only counts as charitable when you willingly give what is legitimately yours to give.
Click to expand...

needs repeating.
 
TheNextEra said:
Now the system isn't perfect because as it is now, once you get on it it is hard to get off the system literally. When you do manage to find a job, they cut you off right away instead of giving you a reasonable grace period from the time you get the job to when you get your first paycheck. That is just one of the issues.
Click to expand...

Bold: I want to make a little clarification here. While this is technically true Welfare does give you 30 days to report that you have found a job. You can use that time to work and get your first paycheck. At least in ID they do. Not sure in other states. This was from my own experience when I was using foodstamps at one point. Though I didn't wait 30 days. I wanted off asap cause I hate having to use it. I just knew about it because I did do my research cause I've got kids and wanted to make the best decision for them also.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Not at all. We just disagree very sharply with those on the far wrong about how to express “empathy”.

There have been numerous studies that show that in general, conservatives are far more generous in voluntarily donating to, and otherwise supporting charitable causes, than liberals.

Liberals are happy to make a show of being “generous” with other people's money, through the support of government policies that steal wealth from those who have rightfully earned it, to be given to those who have not; but are rarely generous with anything that is legitimately their own to give.
Click to expand...


Could that be because those who have the financial means to be "generous" with their money are by in large, Republicans?
 
mpg said:
Does the far left have a complete inability to relate to those who are less fortunate?
Click to expand...

If they don't then the right needs to stop referring to those on the far left as "bleeding heart liberals". It seems to me that those on the left fight for causes (environmental, womens rights, socioeconomic inequality) , where those on the right fight for themselves.
 
ChezC3 said:
I don't think it is a lack of empathy so much as it is a willful stubbornness to rationalize their own contradictions, manage unrealistic expectations, being honest about their questionable motives, and a genuine misunderstanding of economics, justice, and human behavior.

These are people who would agree that what transpired with the credit default swap crisis of '08 was without question completely unethical but not illegal. Therefore justifiable and acceptable.

These are people who think that we live in some sort of paleolithic era in which if you can't provide for yourself; food, shelter, and in today's world HC, and education than you're just weak and should die off -- if you can't get your share of charitable giving to sustain yourself.

These are the same people who can't understand the exploitive nature of capital toward labor, that labor is a commodity and like all commodities needs to be acquired for the lowest cost possible. It's the dehumanizing nature of Capitalism and liberalism for that matter. (in every possible definition of the word)

Of course, these are the same people who will give plenty to charity but would just as soon kick the bum on the street in the eye before they would give him a quarter.

So, in short, no I don't think it's a lack of empathy. Claiming that only dehumanizes them and gives them an out. They choose to be the way they are. They can choose to change.
Click to expand...


Of course, these are the same people who will give plenty to charity but would just as soon kick the bum on the street in the eye before they would give him a quarter.


can you for a minute, look at that statement, and wonder why?

i have offered jobs to the guys on the corner many times.....you know what they say?

screw that....i dont want to work....

i figured if they were hungry they would work cleaning out a garage, or pulling weeds, or some other job in my yard that i really didnt want to do

and maybe they could earn a little dignity along with some cash.....

at least when i give money to my three charities, i basically know what it is used for, and where it goes....i sit on the board for the biggest of the three

when i have seen my wife give money to a guy on the streets, inevitably we see him later drinking from his bottle

i learned a long time ago to try and not enable people.....

i believe that 95% can succeed with a hand up if they want to....

not going to waste my time, money, or energy anymore on the ones that refuse to help themselves

if that makes me your poster child for what's wrong with the "right", then so be it


and btw....These are people who would agree that what transpired with the credit default swap crisis of '08 was without question completely unethical but not illegal. Therefore justifiable and acceptable.

either we are a land of laws, or we arent.....just because you dont like something doesnt make it illegal

and yes....there is a huge difference between unethical and illegal....any lawyer in the land can explain it to you
 
TheNextEra said:
First of all don't know how to answer because this post and the poll don't mean the same thing. So I'll answer your statement of "A complete inability to relate to those who are less fortunate".

The answer is no, they don't lack the inability. The simple fact is that there are HUGE abuses to the social safety net systems. Welfare needs to be completely overhauled and then have true oversight. Welfare is not meant to be used for "Well I don't feel like working so I won't". It was meant as a temporary thing to help lift people up from the short term troubles they faced.

Now the system isn't perfect because as it is now, once you get on it it is hard to get off the system literally. When you do manage to find a job, they cut you off right away instead of giving you a reasonable grace period from the time you get the job to when you get your first paycheck. That is just one of the issues.

Many on the right have an issues with 2-3 generational families living off welfare completely, illegal immigrants sucking off the healthcare system as well as welfare. These are legitimate concerns.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you mentioned above. However the problem I see is MANY on the right place everyone who needs help in one huge 47% bucket. Their belief is that you are a free loader if you need any assistants from the government. And the approach to those without even understanding the situation is vicious.
 
gdgyva said:
Of course, these are the same people who will give plenty to charity but would just as soon kick the bum on the street in the eye before they would give him a quarter.


can you for a minute, look at that statement, and wonder why?

i have offered jobs to the guys on the corner many times.....you know what they say?

screw that....i dont want to work....

i figured if they were hungry they would work cleaning out a garage, or pulling weeds, or some other job in my yard that i really didnt want to do

and maybe they could earn a little dignity along with some cash.....

at least when i give money to my three charities, i basically know what it is used for, and where it goes....i sit on the board for the biggest of the three

when i have seen my wife give money to a guy on the streets, inevitably we see him later drinking from his bottle

i learned a long time ago to try and not enable people.....

i believe that 95% can succeed with a hand up if they want to....

not going to waste my time, money, or energy anymore on the ones that refuse to help themselves

if that makes me your poster child for what's wrong with the "right", then so be it


and btw....These are people who would agree that what transpired with the credit default swap crisis of '08 was without question completely unethical but not illegal. Therefore justifiable and acceptable.

either we are a land of laws, or we arent.....just because you dont like something doesnt make it illegal

and yes....there is a huge difference between unethical and illegal....any lawyer in the land can explain it to you
Click to expand...


Yes. Bums are ugly, and people dislike ugly.

Anecdotes of individual experiences are neither verifiable nor convincing.

Yes, we know where that money you give to charities go, to executive salaries, it's a must remember -- how else are non-profits suppose to compete for talent?

Yes, but I'd go further and say 100% can. Of course, success is subjective.

I don't believe I pointed you out, but apparently you self identify.

What you've said here as it regards the CDS affirms my position. You feel that so long as the force of the government doesn't dissuade you, that anything should be acceptable no matter the consequences.

It is that prevalent attitude you've displayed that makes me say "Qwityerbitchin" when you cry about government regulations...

If people learned to control themselves the government wouldn't have to.
 
Last edited:
Why did this post automatically become about those on wellfare?

Perhaps I should have given it a little more direction.

What I'm speaking of has more to do with far right media and those that listen to it.

For instance the reaction to immigration issue and the children that are being held on the border. The right wings reaction to this, and especially those I talk to on a somewhat regular basis, is basically ****'em.. send em back, I dont care. Its not an infrequent answer that I get. It seems to be the common answer to the question of what do we do with these children.

On the other hand, when I ask those that I know to be left leaning their common reaction to it is different, more empathetic. To sum up the majority of their responses, most of them want to see something done about immigration but think that we need to take care of these children.

Its a vastly different reaction to something that in my eyes shouldn't even be a question.


Another example is the health care debate. Right wing tends to think that each person should be on their own and that they shouldn't have to pay for someone elses health care, yet that is exactly how insurance companies operate. This to me shows either a lack of empathy, or just ignorance as to how private insurance companies have always worked.

There is two sides to each debate, and every one I've ever gotten into the person arguing that of the far right always takes the "lone wolf" stance, while the those on the left generally take the "we're all in this together" approach.
 
Goshin said:
Evidence suggests no. Conservatives give more to charity than liberals.
Click to expand...

I see it as conservatives giving more (monetary) and liberals doing more (volunteering).. each is a form of charity.

Also, those who have the means to give more ($) tend to be conservative. Your average liberal is probably sitting in a dorm room some where.
 
OnWisconsin said:
I see it as conservatives giving more (monetary) and liberals doing more (volunteering).. each is a form of charity.

Also, those who have the means to give more ($) tend to be conservative. Your average liberal is probably sitting in a dorm room some where.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that shows liberals volunteer more?

The last time I checked, liberals were slightly more wealthy than conservatives.
 
mpg said:
Your second link is praising liberals, so that obviously doesn't count as conservatives criticizing empathy. Your first link is just one guy. I'm sure you could find others, but your poll seems to be asking about more than just a handful of people. Am I wrong about that?
Click to expand...

refer to post #63

the bleeding heart liberal thing is hardly what I wish to discuss.
 
OnWisconsin said:
refer to post #63
Click to expand...
Post #63 refers to your personal experience. Even if we accepted the word of Joe Schmoe on the internet, one person's personal experience is almost meaningless.



OnWisconsin said:
the bleeding heart liberal thing is hardly what I wish to discuss.
Click to expand...
You brought it up. You haven't shown why this poll should be about the far right more than the far left.
 
I think there are two sides to the coin with some on the left and some on the right buying into generalizations to fuel their ideology.

I think some on the right believe people are less fortunate either solely or mostly due to the individual inflicting their situation upon themselves like drug use, laziness, poor financial choices or just people being scum and trying to play the welfare system for free money at the taxpayer's expense.

I think some on the left believe people are less fortunate either solely or mostly due to outside circumstances beyond their control, being the victim of big business/corporations, the believe that race/ethnicity may put someone in these situations or that people just can't rise up due to the rich keeping people poor.

I've seen people on both sides be very dogmatic (and very ignorant) with a closed mind in regards to how they view the less fortunate. In reality there are some people that fall on hard times because they got screwed over beyond their control, someone could have worked for a company for many years and then got laid off, someone could have a sick family member they are caring for that costs the family lots of time and money, a spouse could leave and tear the household apart. There are some who also abuse the system and choose to be in that situation, those who do make poor financial choices or those who have substance abuse problems and still those who are just plain lazy and don't want to work hard and advance themselves. In reality each person's case should be taken individually with individual factors behind the problem and individual solutions applied to fix it. If you think the right lack empathy largely because their policies are more geared toward less handouts and more work opportunities then would you say the left is simply naive because they trust those less fortunate are there due to means outside of their power and support more policies that mean more money being tossed at the issue at the expense of taxpayers?
 
Some do, some don't. I will venture to say that a higher percentage of the far right tend to display these characteristics than the general populace.
 
mpg said:
Post #63 refers to your personal experience. Even if we accepted the word of Joe Schmoe on the internet, one person's personal experience is almost meaningless.



You brought it up. You haven't shown why this poll should be about the far right more than the far left.
Click to expand...

For **** sake.. to further your argument you simply discredit what I have to say because its personal experience. So are we only suppose to talk about Straight up facts on this website? There's no room for personal experience? You don't have to take my word for it. Get out of your house and socialize with some people. It's not like what I said is any Big Secret that only I possess knowledge of.

Do you deny that conservatives take a lone wolf attitude and liberals take a we're all in this together attitude? Libertarianism vs Communism?
 
Last edited:
ChezC3 said:
If people learned to control themselves the government wouldn't have to.
Click to expand...

And there you nailed the basic leftist problem. You simply cannot tolerate individual freedom. If it cannot be controlled it cannot be allowed. That governs your every philosophy. And of course that means YOU get to decide what constitutes control over oneself (for everyone but yourself).
 
OnWisconsin said:
A complete inability to relate to those who are less fortunate.
Click to expand...


I've noticed that a lot of conservatives drive big vehicles for a reason. They drink more for a reason. They tell you they drink more for a reason (even if they actually don't drink more). It's about making up for things that aren't actually there for them personally. Now that might mean them being 5'6 tall, that might be them having grown up around people who viewed life through prisms in which you are judged on being a man by how much you can drink, how big your vehicle is.
 
OnWisconsin said:
A complete inability to relate to those who are less fortunate.
Click to expand...

The problem with this line of thought, is that you are confusing one's political beliefs of what are the realities of the world, and one's personal belief system. The fact is the government is worst way to go about helping someone, the built-in bureaucracy is the most inefficient way to help those in need, as all it does it steal from one to give to another, and much of that money never gets to where you want it to go. That has nothing to do when it comes to their personal lives though. Look at Churches for example and all the good they do in the community.

You're going to find and equal lack of empathy on both sides of the fence, remember that actions speak louder than words.

OnWisconsin said:
For **** sake.. to further your argument you simply discredit what I have to say because its personal experience. So are we only suppose to talk about Straight up facts on this website? There's no room for personal experience? You don't have to take my word for it. Get out of your house and socialize with some people. It's not like what I said is any Big Secret that only I possess knowledge of.

Do you deny that conservatives take a lone wolf attitude and liberals take a we're all in this together attitude? Libertarianism vs Communism?
Click to expand...

Again, the problem here is that you are confusing political realities, with personal beliefs. Say what you will, but Capitalism has done more worldwide to bring people out of poverty than Socialism ever had or will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom