Conservatives and Empathy

[Texanmike]

The study by the WHO was done in 2000. It was the FIRST study done by that organization. So you are just emoting again.

If you think the study isn't valid you shouldn't have posted it to defend your argument.

I took it at face value as it actually sounded about right and wasn't much different than a lot of such statistics I've seen.

I haven't been emoting at all. I am simply of the conviction that the federal government should not be doing that which can be done more efficiently, effectively, and economically at more local levels or by the private sector. The Federal government should not be doing healthcare.

Hello??? The study is valid. What has no validity is YOUR claim that America used to be number one in these categories. You offer no proof, just opinion. I merely pointed out that this was the first time the WHO did this study.

You ARE emoting, because NOTHING you have argued holds up to the FACTS. You are parroting right wing dogma and ideology that we MUST cling to the failed Wall Street controlled 'for profit' health care system that puts America at the bottom of the list of all industrialized countries. It is handicapping all our industries in the marketplace and is literally KILLING America citizens who are dying from preventable diseases that are not being diagnosed and treated.

Again you emote about efficiency. The reason insurance cartels spent millions of dollars to kill a public option, is because they know they can't compete. Private 'for profit' insurance corporations have administrative expenses around 30%, Medicare has an administrative expense around 3%.

You really need to educate yourself to the FACTS. The only thing you've proven on this thread is the depth and scope of your ignorance.

Source time?

Mike

 

[Big Fitz]

If you think the study isn't valid you shouldn't have posted it to defend your argument.

I took it at face value as it actually sounded about right and wasn't much different than a lot of such statistics I've seen.

I haven't been emoting at all. I am simply of the conviction that the federal government should not be doing that which can be done more efficiently, effectively, and economically at more local levels or by the private sector. The Federal government should not be doing healthcare.

Hello??? The study is valid. What has no validity is YOUR claim that America used to be number one in these categories. You offer no proof, just opinion. I merely pointed out that this was the first time the WHO did this study.

You ARE emoting, because NOTHING you have argued holds up to the FACTS. You are parroting right wing dogma and ideology that we MUST cling to the failed Wall Street controlled 'for profit' health care system that puts America at the bottom of the list of all industrialized countries. It is handicapping all our industries in the marketplace and is literally KILLING America citizens who are dying from preventable diseases that are not being diagnosed and treated.

Again you emote about efficiency. The reason insurance cartels spent millions of dollars to kill a public option, is because they know they can't compete. Private 'for profit' insurance corporations have administrative expenses around 30%, Medicare has an administrative expense around 3%.

You really need to educate yourself to the FACTS. The only thing you've proven on this thread is the depth and scope of your ignorance.

Source time?

Mike

make sure you check the sources of his sources. Tardtard loves special interests, advocacy blogs and propagandist charts to back up his faulty 'logic'.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hello??? The study is valid. What has no validity is YOUR claim that America used to be number one in these categories. You offer no proof, just opinion. I merely pointed out that this was the first time the WHO did this study.

You ARE emoting, because NOTHING you have argued holds up to the FACTS. You are parroting right wing dogma and ideology that we MUST cling to the failed Wall Street controlled 'for profit' health care system that puts America at the bottom of the list of all industrialized countries. It is handicapping all our industries in the marketplace and is literally KILLING America citizens who are dying from preventable diseases that are not being diagnosed and treated.

Again you emote about efficiency. The reason insurance cartels spent millions of dollars to kill a public option, is because they know they can't compete. Private 'for profit' insurance corporations have administrative expenses around 30%, Medicare has an administrative expense around 3%.

You really need to educate yourself to the FACTS. The only thing you've proven on this thread is the depth and scope of your ignorance.

Source time?

Mike

make sure you check the sources of his sources. Tardtard loves special interests, advocacy blogs and propagandist charts to back up his faulty 'logic'.

And, he gets quite agitated when he fails to read his own sources carefully and then it is pointed out that they support YOUR argument.

 

[Big Fitz]

Source time?

Mike

make sure you check the sources of his sources. Tardtard loves special interests, advocacy blogs and propagandist charts to back up his faulty 'logic'.

And, he gets quite agitated when he fails to read his own sources carefully and then it is pointed out that they support YOUR argument.

Touche!

 

[Bfgrn]

Source time?

Mike

make sure you check the sources of his sources. Tardtard loves special interests, advocacy blogs and propagandist charts to back up his faulty 'logic'.

And, he gets quite agitated when he fails to read his own sources carefully and then it is pointed out that they support YOUR argument.

Translation: Foxfyre got chewed up and spit out by me. So her only retort is a false accusation and whining.

 

[Bfgrn]

If you think the study isn't valid you shouldn't have posted it to defend your argument.

I took it at face value as it actually sounded about right and wasn't much different than a lot of such statistics I've seen.

I haven't been emoting at all. I am simply of the conviction that the federal government should not be doing that which can be done more efficiently, effectively, and economically at more local levels or by the private sector. The Federal government should not be doing healthcare.

Hello??? The study is valid. What has no validity is YOUR claim that America used to be number one in these categories. You offer no proof, just opinion. I merely pointed out that this was the first time the WHO did this study.

You ARE emoting, because NOTHING you have argued holds up to the FACTS. You are parroting right wing dogma and ideology that we MUST cling to the failed Wall Street controlled 'for profit' health care system that puts America at the bottom of the list of all industrialized countries. It is handicapping all our industries in the marketplace and is literally KILLING America citizens who are dying from preventable diseases that are not being diagnosed and treated.

Again you emote about efficiency. The reason insurance cartels spent millions of dollars to kill a public option, is because they know they can't compete. Private 'for profit' insurance corporations have administrative expenses around 30%, Medicare has an administrative expense around 3%.

You really need to educate yourself to the FACTS. The only thing you've proven on this thread is the depth and scope of your ignorance.

Source time?

Mike

Post 273...try to pay attention, or seek adult assistance.

 

[Bern80]

I see most of you are STILL confusing empathy for sympathy.

Oh well... we tried to explain the difference (they have VASTLY different meanings, ya know?) but apparently some of you will never get it.

Empthy is NOT sympathy, folks.

Again, ed, yes we do know the difference. It is simply our contention (at least mine anyway) that when you argue that the right lacks empathy, what you claim we are lacking does not meet any defintion of empathy. That's simply the emotionally charged word you've chosen to use to cast the right in a negative light.

Whether you care to admit it or not what I suspect you really mean is that the right doesn't DO enough for other people, which you are calling a lack of empathy.

 

[Foxfyre]

I see most of you are STILL confusing empathy for sympathy.

Oh well... we tried to explain the difference (they have VASTLY different meanings, ya know?) but apparently some of you will never get it.

Empthy is NOT sympathy, folks.

Again, ed, yes we do know the difference. It is simply our contention (at least mine anyway) that when you argue that the right lacks empathy, what you claim we are lacking does not meet any defintion of empathy. That's simply the emotionally charged word you've chosen to use to cast the right in a negative light.

Whether you care to admit it or not what I suspect you really mean is that the right doesn't DO enough for other people, which you are calling a lack of empathy.

Empathy is feeling what other people feel.

Sympathy is feeling sorry for the situation of another.

Neither is an action such as charity which is our response to feelings of empathy or sympathy or given simply out of concern for others.

The records shows that American Conservatives give a good deal more to charity--giving of money or property, giving of blood, and giving of time/talent/experience--than do liberals.

In my opinion charity, which is measurable, is a far more noble thing than claiming virtue due to our empathy or sympathy which are actually unmeasurable.

 

[Foxfyre]

make sure you check the sources of his sources. Tardtard loves special interests, advocacy blogs and propagandist charts to back up his faulty 'logic'.

And, he gets quite agitated when he fails to read his own sources carefully and then it is pointed out that they support YOUR argument.

Translation: Foxfyre got chewed up and spit out by me. So her only retort is a false accusation and whining.

In your dreams maybe. Certainly not on this thread.

 

[Big Fitz]

And, he gets quite agitated when he fails to read his own sources carefully and then it is pointed out that they support YOUR argument.

Translation: Foxfyre got chewed up and spit out by me. So her only retort is a false accusation and whining.

In your dreams maybe. Certainly not on this thread.

He couldn't gum Jello on a bet.

 

[Bfgrn]

I see most of you are STILL confusing empathy for sympathy.

Oh well... we tried to explain the difference (they have VASTLY different meanings, ya know?) but apparently some of you will never get it.

Empthy is NOT sympathy, folks.

Again, ed, yes we do know the difference. It is simply our contention (at least mine anyway) that when you argue that the right lacks empathy, what you claim we are lacking does not meet any defintion of empathy. That's simply the emotionally charged word you've chosen to use to cast the right in a negative light.

Whether you care to admit it or not what I suspect you really mean is that the right doesn't DO enough for other people, which you are calling a lack of empathy.

Empathy is feeling what other people feel.

Sympathy is feeling sorry for the situation of another.

Neither is an action such as charity which is our response to feelings of empathy or sympathy or given simply out of concern for others.

The records shows that American Conservatives give a good deal more to charity--giving of money or property, giving of blood, and giving of time/talent/experience--than do liberals.

In my opinion charity, which is measurable, is a far more noble thing than claiming virtue due to our empathy or sympathy which are actually unmeasurable.

WHY do you keep forwarding the same lie?

THE Arthur Brooks study

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

Brooks was very well researched in his published study and uses data from many sources to prove that the one overwhelming predictor of generosity is religion. Political affiliation is almost irrelevent - the statistics for religious liberals and religious conservaties are identical. Religious people are statistically more likely to give than secularists (91% to 66%), and give more of their money (3.5 times more than secularists), are more likely to volunteer their time (67% to 44%), and volunteer more of their time (almost twice as much). And, according to Brooks: The fact that the conservative population is more charitable than the liberal population is due to the fact that more religious people tend to be politically conservative.

Brooks defines religious people as those who attend a place of worship once a week or so (roughly 30% of the population), and secularists as those who do not believe in a diety or attend a place of worship one time a year or less (20% of the population). That leaves about 50% for which statistics are less clear, but Brooks still gives the edge to conservatives.

 

[Bern80]

Again, ed, yes we do know the difference. It is simply our contention (at least mine anyway) that when you argue that the right lacks empathy, what you claim we are lacking does not meet any defintion of empathy. That's simply the emotionally charged word you've chosen to use to cast the right in a negative light.

Whether you care to admit it or not what I suspect you really mean is that the right doesn't DO enough for other people, which you are calling a lack of empathy.

Empathy is feeling what other people feel.

Sympathy is feeling sorry for the situation of another.

Neither is an action such as charity which is our response to feelings of empathy or sympathy or given simply out of concern for others.

The records shows that American Conservatives give a good deal more to charity--giving of money or property, giving of blood, and giving of time/talent/experience--than do liberals.

In my opinion charity, which is measurable, is a far more noble thing than claiming virtue due to our empathy or sympathy which are actually unmeasurable.

WHY do you keep forwarding the same lie?

THE Arthur Brooks study

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

A few problems with your contention. First, it's one person's study. Secondly, giving of themselves is pretty vague. If it means volunteering, I'm sorry my observation has been that the coservatives I know volunteer their time more so than the liberals I know. Maybe if you mean 'raising awareness' or complaining to government, liberals 'give' more of themselves.....

 

[Bfgrn]

Empathy is feeling what other people feel.

Sympathy is feeling sorry for the situation of another.

Neither is an action such as charity which is our response to feelings of empathy or sympathy or given simply out of concern for others.

The records shows that American Conservatives give a good deal more to charity--giving of money or property, giving of blood, and giving of time/talent/experience--than do liberals.

In my opinion charity, which is measurable, is a far more noble thing than claiming virtue due to our empathy or sympathy which are actually unmeasurable.

WHY do you keep forwarding the same lie?

THE Arthur Brooks study

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

A few problems with your contention. First, it's one person's study. Secondly, giving of themselves is pretty vague. If it means volunteering, I'm sorry my observation has been that the coservatives I know volunteer their time more so than the liberals I know. Maybe if you mean 'raising awareness' or complaining to government, liberals 'give' more of themselves.....

It is one person's study...BUT it is THE study conservatives have used beyond reason in the debate here and everywhere. It has gone viral on the internet and being cited and twisted in the right wing echo chamber.

 

[Bern80]

WHY do you keep forwarding the same lie?

THE Arthur Brooks study

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

A few problems with your contention. First, it's one person's study. Secondly, giving of themselves is pretty vague. If it means volunteering, I'm sorry my observation has been that the coservatives I know volunteer their time more so than the liberals I know. Maybe if you mean 'raising awareness' or complaining to government, liberals 'give' more of themselves.....

It is one person's study...BUT it is THE study conservatives have used beyond reason in the debate here and everywhere. It has gone viral on the internet and being cited and twisted in the right wing echo chamber.

Nothing is being twisted Bf. You yourself noted the stats cited show conservatives give slightly more than liberals. Call it 50/50 if you want, but that in itself ought to be enough to debunk this b.s. notion that liberals are more empathetic than conservatives. On top of that it is hard to deny that Fox's analysis is incorrect. Are you really going to disagree that conservatives tend to be more religious than liberals?

 

[Bfgrn]

A few problems with your contention. First, it's one person's study. Secondly, giving of themselves is pretty vague. If it means volunteering, I'm sorry my observation has been that the coservatives I know volunteer their time more so than the liberals I know. Maybe if you mean 'raising awareness' or complaining to government, liberals 'give' more of themselves.....

It is one person's study...BUT it is THE study conservatives have used beyond reason in the debate here and everywhere. It has gone viral on the internet and being cited and twisted in the right wing echo chamber.

Nothing is being twisted Bf. You yourself noted the stats cited show conservatives give slightly more than liberals. Call it 50/50 if you want, but that in itself ought to be enough to debunk this b.s. notion that liberals are more empathetic than conservatives. On top of that it is hard to deny that Fox's analysis is incorrect. Are you really going to disagree that conservatives tend to be more religious than liberals?

Yes it IS being twisted. It is being twisted right here!

Originally Posted by Foxfyre
"The records shows that American Conservatives give a good deal more to charity--giving of money or property, giving of blood, and giving of time/talent/experience--than do liberals." ... FALSE


The records shows that American Conservatives are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people. But liberals are more likely to volunteer (giving of time/talent/experience)


Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

 

[Bern80]

It is one person's study...BUT it is THE study conservatives have used beyond reason in the debate here and everywhere. It has gone viral on the internet and being cited and twisted in the right wing echo chamber.

Nothing is being twisted Bf. You yourself noted the stats cited show conservatives give slightly more than liberals. Call it 50/50 if you want, but that in itself ought to be enough to debunk this b.s. notion that liberals are more empathetic than conservatives. On top of that it is hard to deny that Fox's analysis is incorrect. Are you really going to disagree that conservatives tend to be more religious than liberals?

Yes it IS being twisted. It is being twisted right here!

Originally Posted by Foxfyre
"The records shows that American Conservatives give a good deal more to charity--giving of money or property, giving of blood, and giving of time/talent/experience--than do liberals." ... FALSE


The records shows that American Conservatives are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people. But liberals are more likely to volunteer (giving of time/talent/experience)


Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

Now who's doing the twisting? You don't give credit to conservatives when they give more money than liberals, but when it's the liberals that are the same percentage point or two ahead of conservatives in giving of their time, you 'conclude' that liberals are more giving of themselves. A percentage point or two is statsitically negligible Bf.

 

[Bfgrn]

Nothing is being twisted Bf. You yourself noted the stats cited show conservatives give slightly more than liberals. Call it 50/50 if you want, but that in itself ought to be enough to debunk this b.s. notion that liberals are more empathetic than conservatives. On top of that it is hard to deny that Fox's analysis is incorrect. Are you really going to disagree that conservatives tend to be more religious than liberals?

Yes it IS being twisted. It is being twisted right here!

Originally Posted by Foxfyre
"The records shows that American Conservatives give a good deal more to charity--giving of money or property, giving of blood, and giving of time/talent/experience--than do liberals." ... FALSE


The records shows that American Conservatives are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people. But liberals are more likely to volunteer (giving of time/talent/experience)


Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

Now who's doing the twisting? You don't give credit to conservatives when they give more money than liberals, but when it's the liberals that are the same percentage point or two ahead of conservatives in giving of their time, you 'conclude' that liberals are more giving of themselves. A percentage point or two is statsitically negligible Bf.

WTF!!! I am not twisting anything! I set the fucking record straight. Foxfyre is the one that was doing the twisting when SHE SAID:
"The records shows that American Conservatives give a good deal more to charity--giving of money or property, giving of blood, and giving of time/talent/experience--than do liberals." ...

Foxfyre is saying that conservatives give more money (a good deal more) FALSE, they don't give a good deal more, they are a percentage point or two more likely to give money!

Foxfyre is saying that conservatives give more of their time. TOTALLY FALSE! Conservatives are a percentage point or so LESS likely to volunteer (give of their time)

 

[Bern80]

Yes it IS being twisted. It is being twisted right here!

Originally Posted by Foxfyre
"The records shows that American Conservatives give a good deal more to charity--giving of money or property, giving of blood, and giving of time/talent/experience--than do liberals." ... FALSE


The records shows that American Conservatives are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people. But liberals are more likely to volunteer (giving of time/talent/experience)


Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

Now who's doing the twisting? You don't give credit to conservatives when they give more money than liberals, but when it's the liberals that are the same percentage point or two ahead of conservatives in giving of their time, you 'conclude' that liberals are more giving of themselves. A percentage point or two is statsitically negligible Bf.

WTF!!! I am not twisting anything! I set the fucking record straight. Foxfyre is the one that was doing the twisting when SHE SAID:
"The records shows that American Conservatives give a good deal more to charity--giving of money or property, giving of blood, and giving of time/talent/experience--than do liberals." ...

Foxfyre is saying that conservatives give more money (a good deal more) FALSE, they don't give a good deal more, they are a percentage point or two more likely to give money!

Foxfyre is saying that conservatives give more of their time. TOTALLY FALSE! Conservatives are a percentage point or so LESS likely to volunteer (give of their time)

Quit being such a transparent weasel Bf. You said:

"So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves."

Everyone here can see what your trying to say (just in a manner you won't have to commit to if pinned down on it). You're a liberal so at the end of the day you're going to try to somehow rationalize despite this statistical dead heat, that liberals are still more charitable than conservatives by insinuating that giving time is better than giving money.

 

[editec]

Reminder:

em·pa·thy/ˈempəTHē/

Noun: The ability to understand and share the feelings of another. More »
Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster


sym·pa·thyNoun/ˈsimpəTHē/


1. Feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune.
2. Formal expression of such feelings; condolences. More »
Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster

Not the same thing although it is clear, from the debates going on here, that some of you still fail to understand the difference.

One can EMPATHIZE with somebody that one HATES. All that is required is that you UNDERSTAND their point of view or can imagine WHY they have that POV.

SYMPATHY is something different than empathy. That doesn't really demand that you understand one's POV, merely that you feel sorry for the person in question.

I think what is going on here is that some of you are unable to imagine the POV of another (naturally this probably means that sympathy is also unlikely).

I can EMPATHIZE, for example, with somebody who is an objectivist libertarian, even though I have no SYMPATHY with their POV.

Those of us who tend to express the opinion that the world is black and white, are probably incapable of empathizing.

It's really a form of brain damage if one cannot imagine the POV of another.