Trump just won

[skepticalbip]

A vote should not assuage one's responsibility for not helping if they hold the beliefs stated here until such programs are actually in place. Why should those asserting this not offer their couch to a homeless person until there is other help. Certainly a person can't help everyone but with the stated mindset they should do whatever they are able to do.

Because it is an excessive impost on a single person. Homeless people massively outnumber any one individual. Taxpayers massively outnumber homeless people. The marginal cost to taxpayers in helping is small, for a large benefit. The marginal cost to a single individual is large, for the same benefit.

You already know this; But for some reason you persist in the bizarre libertarian sociopathic idea (apologies for the tautology) that any impost on the individual is equal.

You might as well say that it is hypocritical to drop a dime into a charity collection for the homeless, instead of building a small city to house them all. It's only hypocrisy if you make a crazy false equivalence fallacy the centrepiece of your philosophy.

You are skirting my question. I agree that one person can't solve all problems alone. But they can help one (or maybe two or three or....) homeless if there is room in their house. Government solutions will take many years, if it ever comes. In the meantime they are still in need. If everyone in the country who claims to hold the mindset that has been expressed on this thread actually did "adopt" a needy person then their would be none left to help.

In fact, if everyone who claims to hold that mindset actually did then the a needy person would have to be time shared between many homes so that people could claim that they helped.

 

[abaddon]

Can someone be called hypocritical who asserts that anyone who chooses not to help when they could has caused harm and yet do not believe they are harming a homeless person they see on the street by not inviting them to come home with them to sleep on the couch?

Did somebody in the thread say that each individual should always help absolutely every single individual they might ever meet that needs anything at all? If they did, then yes they’re bound to be hypocritical about that because it’s a bombastic claim. But I reviewed the thread and, while I can see where one might read that into one or two posts with some too-quick reading, I don’t see that anyone actually said that.

 

[bilby]

Because it is an excessive impost on a single person. Homeless people massively outnumber any one individual. Taxpayers massively outnumber homeless people. The marginal cost to taxpayers in helping is small, for a large benefit. The marginal cost to a single individual is large, for the same benefit.

You already know this; But for some reason you persist in the bizarre libertarian sociopathic idea (apologies for the tautology) that any impost on the individual is equal.

You might as well say that it is hypocritical to drop a dime into a charity collection for the homeless, instead of building a small city to house them all. It's only hypocrisy if you make a crazy false equivalence fallacy the centrepiece of your philosophy.

You are skirting my question. I agree that one person can't solve all problems alone. But they can help one (or maybe two or three or....) homeless if there is room in their house. Government solutions will take many years, if it ever comes. In the meantime they are still in need. If everyone in the country who claims to hold the mindset that has been expressed on this thread actually did "adopt" a needy person then their would be none left to help.

And yet there are. So clearly either people are hypocrites, or you are wrong.

I don't agree that people are hypocrites; I suspect that you have simply mis-defined 'hypocrisy'.

Your entire philosophy is at risk if you accept that you are in error here, so I have no expectation that you will agree with me. Arguing with ideologues is like that - whether their ideology is political or religious.

The phrase in bold is interesting; You are being very vague about what, exactly, the 'mindset' is, or who, exactly, has expressed it.

Are you simply setting an arbitrary standard for others, and then claiming that they are hypocrites for not meeting it? Because that's not what hypocrisy is.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are skirting my question. I agree that one person can't solve all problems alone. But they can help one (or maybe two or three or....) homeless if there is room in their house. Government solutions will take many years, if it ever comes. In the meantime they are still in need. If everyone in the country who claims to hold the mindset that has been expressed on this thread actually did "adopt" a needy person then their would be none left to help.

And yet there are. So clearly either people are hypocrites, or you are wrong.

I don't agree that people are hypocrites; I suspect that you have simply mis-defined 'hypocrisy'.

Your entire philosophy is at risk if you accept that you are in error here, so I have no expectation that you will agree with me. Arguing with ideologues is like that - whether their ideology is political or religious.

I don't think they are knowingly hypocrites. I think they are mostly overstating the idea of not helping means harming without considering how they actually live their own lives. I was addressing this overstatement.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Can someone be called hypocritical who asserts that anyone who chooses not to help when they could has caused harm and yet do not believe they are harming a homeless person they see on the street by not inviting them to come home with them to sleep on the couch?

Yes.

Some people will answer that they will ask the government to help, but that is them doing a "feel good" instead of them helping. They are making you help in their place instead of them helping, and it makes them feel oh-so-good to do so.

The principle of "if you don't help that is morally equivalent to causing harm" made sense back in the days when we lived in villages of 150 people (no more) and the next village over was ready, willing, and able to wipe us out the moment they saw any weakness in our village. They had their stone spears, we had our stone spears, they would occasionally try to raid for our women, we would occasionally try to raid for their women.

That principle hasn't applied since the founding of the first cities of over 500 people. It doesn't apply to any of us since we are not cavemen. The fact that you are typing on a computer that feel-good principle of "if you don't help then you are causing harm" shows you are not in the pre-civilized days when survival hung on the thinnest of threads.

Note, I'm not saying "it is good to help" is false. I'm denying the moral necessity to help. I'm denying the mandate. I know there are some who will glady look at me denying the mandate and conclude that I don't believe in helping at all.

So no, I am not causing harm when I don't go out of my way to take an active role in helping others. And for the cavemen, they were directly helping themselves by helping others, so they weren't being altruistic. Also those who say "I'll just petition the government" aren't taking any sort of role, active or otherwise, in helping others. They are simply directing you to help whether you want to or not, and making themselves feel good for doing something when they are actually doing nothing.

 

[fast]

I don’t need your analogies to get your point. And moral assessment isn’t my point, I was after what “hurt” and “harm” really are in that particular analogy because I see that you like to play with words.

You had to introduce the problem of who directly caused what “hurt” or “harm” into it to make your ‘fine distinctions’ about words work. And here too you didn’t really answer but deflected, again, with the needless distinctions regarding words.

The original talk was about Trump’s hypocrisy. He’s had years he could bring some overseas jobs back to America, as credoconsolans pointed out, because one complaint that Trump has promised to solve is that it hurts… HURTS!… Americans that the corporations don’t do that, and Trump’s a part of that problem along with the others. But you wanted to make fine distinctions about whether it’d be wiser for him to do it in the future instead, maybe. Or not at all, maybe. It’s dependent on a little cost-benefit analysis of when it’s best for Trump to do it … and dependent a little on Trump’s own best interest, maybe. The distinction of hurtful and harm-doing became important somehow in the flood of bullshit from you.

You know, sometimes the fine distinctions in word-usage are nothing but a deflection from the matter at hand. So consider that it’d be much better if you learned to just get the gist of what other people are getting at and address it with no word-wrangling.

I accept your criticism. I'll try to do better next time.

 

[skepticalbip]

And you do this every time you see a homeless person on the street? Maybe not a job if you don't have one to offer but money, clothing, food?

Yes. Don't you?

You give them enough money for a meal and a hotel room? Since you have an empty couch in your living room and a refrigerator full of food, you could invite them home and still have the money to help others.

 

[Juma]

If I had noone else to turn to, it would have very bad to be without electricity and you could have helped me without a great cost for you then yes.


That is why we in sweden gives from the common to those that cannot pay for the basic needs, as electricity.

So if someone really needs to buy a car so they can get to work and I have enough in my savings account (obviously I don't "need" that money since I am not depending on it) then I should use my savings to buy them that car they need?

I dont say that. I just say it hurts them. Wether you should lessen that hurt or not is another question.

 

[skepticalbip]

So if someone really needs to buy a car so they can get to work and I have enough in my savings account (obviously I don't "need" that money since I am not depending on it) then I should use my savings to buy them that car they need?

I dont say that. I just say it hurts them. Wether you should lessen that hurt or not is another question.

I don't understand. Are you saying that it is not wrong to intentionally hurt someone? I was brought up differently.

From what I gather from this thread the clam is that to be able to help someone and yet intentionally not help them hurts them. The way I read that is that it would make helping an obligation - to not help would be to intentionally hurt them.

 

[credoconsolans]

Yes. Don't you?

You give them enough money for a meal and a hotel room? Since you have an empty couch in your living room and a refrigerator full of food, you could invite them home and still have the money to help others.

Are you going to start this 'if you don't help them the way I consider help, then you're not helping at all', argument?

 

[DrZoidberg]

You give them enough money for a meal and a hotel room? Since you have an empty couch in your living room and a refrigerator full of food, you could invite them home and still have the money to help others.

Are you going to start this 'if you don't help them the way I consider help, then you're not helping at all', argument?

And what if the person helping is retarded and does the wrong thing? I mean, everybody who voted for Trump is clinically retarded. That's a majority of the American population. A lot of helping is in fact "helping" and just makes life harder for everybody. Considering the number of empowered idiots in USA the world needs to fear USA's "help". Being an idiot is fine if it also comes with insecurity. But nothing it more dangerous than an empowered moron. Dunning-Kruger and all that.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Are you going to start this 'if you don't help them the way I consider help, then you're not helping at all', argument?

And what if the person helping is retarded and does the wrong thing? I mean, everybody who voted for Trump is clinically retarded. That's a majority of the American population. A lot of helping is in fact "helping" and just makes life harder for everybody. Considering the number of empowered idiots in USA the world needs to fear USA's "help". Being an idiot is fine if it also comes with insecurity. But nothing it more dangerous than an empowered moron. Dunning-Kruger and all that.

Sorry, but a majority of Americans did not vote for Trump. He'll end up getting about 2% less votes than HRC after all the balloting is completed.

 

[Angry Floof]

Are you going to start this 'if you don't help them the way I consider help, then you're not helping at all', argument?

And what if the person helping is retarded and does the wrong thing? I mean, everybody who voted for Trump is clinically retarded. That's a majority of the American population. A lot of helping is in fact "helping" and just makes life harder for everybody. Considering the number of empowered idiots in USA the world needs to fear USA's "help". Being an idiot is fine if it also comes with insecurity. But nothing it more dangerous than an empowered moron. Dunning-Kruger and all that.

It is not a majority of Americans. Most Americans support progressive measures and views by far. It's not even a half and half issue. People of good will are also apparently lazy people who don't vote. The election doesn't reflect a majority of Trump voters even if he had won the popular vote as well as the electoral vote. The election reflects continued disengagement of liberals and increased engagement of Fox Newstainment viewers.

 

[thebeave]

Are you going to start this 'if you don't help them the way I consider help, then you're not helping at all', argument?

And what if the person helping is retarded and does the wrong thing? I mean, everybody who voted for Trump is clinically retarded. That's a majority of the American population. A lot of helping is in fact "helping" and just makes life harder for everybody. Considering the number of empowered idiots in USA the world needs to fear USA's "help". Being an idiot is fine if it also comes with insecurity. But nothing it more dangerous than an empowered moron. Dunning-Kruger and all that.

Keep that message load and clear and you'll see Trump get a second term. Just a tip for next time.

 

[Deepak]

And what if the person helping is retarded and does the wrong thing? I mean, everybody who voted for Trump is clinically retarded. That's a majority of the American population. A lot of helping is in fact "helping" and just makes life harder for everybody. Considering the number of empowered idiots in USA the world needs to fear USA's "help". Being an idiot is fine if it also comes with insecurity. But nothing it more dangerous than an empowered moron. Dunning-Kruger and all that.

Keep that message load and clear and you'll see Trump get a second term. Just a tip for next time.

I don't think land crabs from Sweden will have much bearing on US elections. It strikes me as curious, though, how much PC snowflake status the alt-right reserve for themselves - surely being able to call people retards should be top line on the agenda...

 

[skepticalbip]

And what if the person helping is retarded and does the wrong thing? I mean, everybody who voted for Trump is clinically retarded. That's a majority of the American population. A lot of helping is in fact "helping" and just makes life harder for everybody. Considering the number of empowered idiots in USA the world needs to fear USA's "help". Being an idiot is fine if it also comes with insecurity. But nothing it more dangerous than an empowered moron. Dunning-Kruger and all that.

Keep that message load and clear and you'll see Trump get a second term. Just a tip for next time.

You are probably right. The Democrats didn't seem to learn during the campaign that attacking Trump with ad hominems and for being politically incorrect only attracted more people to him. Reality is politically incorrect and "that is offensive" is not an argument. HRCs scree about deplorables that are racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, bigots, etc. was probably one of the greatest boons the Trump campaign got.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And what if the person helping is retarded and does the wrong thing? I mean, everybody who voted for Trump is clinically retarded. That's a majority of the American population. A lot of helping is in fact "helping" and just makes life harder for everybody. Considering the number of empowered idiots in USA the world needs to fear USA's "help". Being an idiot is fine if it also comes with insecurity. But nothing it more dangerous than an empowered moron. Dunning-Kruger and all that.

It is not a majority of Americans. Most Americans support progressive measures and views by far. It's not even a half and half issue. People of good will are also apparently lazy people who don't vote. The election doesn't reflect a majority of Trump voters even if he had won the popular vote as well as the electoral vote. The election reflects continued disengagement of liberals and increased engagement of Fox Newstainment viewers.

Well, supporting progressive views and $5 will get you a latte at Starbucks. If you're not willing to fight for those views (or at least go slightly out of your way for them), then holding them is pointless and irrelevant. The GOP vote totals are about the same in this election and the 2012 election, but five million Dems didn't bother to show up this year and you still had about a hundred million eligible voters staying home and not participating and then Trump won in a squeaker.

If you say that you support recycling but always throw your cans in the trash because the recycling bin is ten feet further away from your desk, then you don't actually support recycling. You may support the "concept" of recycling at some vague and abstract level, but you are not actually supportive of the trivial and basic actions required to recycle things. Similarly, a disengaged liberal isn't worth being included in the count of liberals because it doesn't matter that they're a liberal. It's like a serial killer with a body count of zero because kidnapping and murdering people takes a whole lot of effort and would cut into his sitting around time - he may self-identify as a serial killer but the label doesn't actually apply to him.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And what if the person helping is retarded and does the wrong thing? I mean, everybody who voted for Trump is clinically retarded. That's a majority of the American population. A lot of helping is in fact "helping" and just makes life harder for everybody. Considering the number of empowered idiots in USA the world needs to fear USA's "help". Being an idiot is fine if it also comes with insecurity. But nothing it more dangerous than an empowered moron. Dunning-Kruger and all that.

Sorry, but a majority of Americans did not vote for Trump. He'll end up getting about 2% less votes than HRC after all the balloting is completed.

By not voting for the other guy they're supporting Trump. The choice is binary. Just because, you in your head, think there's a third choice, there isn't one. Whatever you do, you're casting your vote for either of one of those two. So, in this situation anything but a vote for Hilary is a vote for Trump. It works in the reverse to. A majority voted for Trump (regardless if they like Trump or not). That's how majority vote democracy works. And the voters in USA who haven't figured this out are stupid... Yes, they are.

It is possible to not give a shit. But then you can't be all up over it if it doesn't go in a way you don't want. Then you do give a shit, you just sucked too much to do anything about it. Sorry about that.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

By not voting for the other guy they're supporting Trump.

Indeed. I have reports of many 3rd party voters saying that their votes magically changed after they voted. Some of them, upon talking to Democrats, discovered that their votes magically changed into Trump votes, while other, upon talking to Republicans, discovered that their votes magically changed into Hillary votes.

We are experiencing supernatural forces at work here. The attempts by fundies to prove that God actually exists have finally been solved.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Keep that message load and clear and you'll see Trump get a second term. Just a tip for next time.

I don't think land crabs from Sweden will have much bearing on US elections. It strikes me as curious, though, how much PC snowflake status the alt-right reserve for themselves - surely being able to call people retards should be top line on the agenda...

ha ha... Did I hurt your feelings? Trump spewed racist nonsense non-stop. Like a child he just said whatever popped into his mind. Anxious to get love from his fans he desperately said stuff they seemed to want to hear. Of course, all bullshit. He demonstrated time and time again that he doesn't understand how democracy works. And he obviously had no inclination nor ability to do any of the stuff he said he was going to do. If a voter doesn't understand that then yes... retardation is the name for it.

The only thing (of all the things he said he would do) he has political power to do anything about is repeal Obamacare. It doesn't look like he's going to do that. So yeah... it's going to be a long and embarrassing four years. I have no doubt he'll get reelected. No, doubt by the same idiots who voted for him the first time.