8 ms·
If a group advocates more self-reliance and less organised help for the less fortunate then it's not unreasonable to accuse them of having less empathy.
by perspectiveless 14y ago
If a group advocates more self-reliance and less organised help for the less fortunate then it's not unreasonable to accuse them of having less empathy.
- javert 14y agoI completely disagree. You can't enjoy life on the dole. The nanny state is a form of cruelty. I truly believe these things. I could go on at length, but what's the point. Fiscal conservativism != less empathy.
- Drbble 14y agoYou added the word "dole" and thereby changed the content of what you claimed to reply to.
- javert 14y agoI don't know what you're talking about. I didn't edit my post, if that's what you mean by "added." I took the reference to Republican advocacy for "more self-reliance" as synonomous with Republican advocacy for less welfare. welfare == dole. Although in actuality, almost all Republicans are RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), because almost all of them are altruists that advocate expanding the government/nanny state, just at a less rapid rate than Democrats. So "Republican" in this discussion may be a misnomer. </rant>
- wwwtyro 14y agoAre you sure it's "less organized help" they are advocating for, or is it "not forced help"? I find it to be the latter in almost all cases. People tend not to argue against charity, but rather "forced charity" (which is not something I would consider charity at all).
- FaceKicker 14y agoI think GP is using "organized" to mean the same thing you're using "forced" to mean - given by a governing body from its tax revenue. Funny how we tend to choose the adjective that puts our personal views in the best possible light. :P