Conservatives and Empathy

[Bfgrn]

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.

NO................................I SAID: "conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves."

I give conservatives credit for giving money, and liberals for giving of themselves.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Well that being the case. the left has an overabundance of Sympathy and far less Empathy.

This of coruse makes your diagnosis of brain damage dead on.

 

[Bern80]

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.

For the umpteenth time, we know. It is quite clear after reading this thread that the only person who does not understand the definition of empathy is the OP.

 

[Foxfyre]

Despite Bfgm's screeds trying to deny it, Brooks' research has been peer reviewed and peer reviewed and peer reviewed and the concusion is fairly consistent. Conservatives are significantly more liberal in general. And the primary reason is that Conservative are generally significantly more religious in general.

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

It seems that religious conservatives, which most, not all, conservatives are, do not look to government to take care of the poor, sick, hungry, etc. but do what they can to take care of that themselves.

It seems that the more liberals reject religion, the more they look to government to assume that role and they call that charity.

In fairness to liberals, religious liberals are also usually personally generous.

Now the question is: Does American conservatism tend to make people more religious? Or does American religion tend to make people more conservative?

 

[Bfgrn]

Despite Bfgm's screeds trying to deny it, Brooks' research has been peer reviewed and peer reviewed and peer reviewed and the concusion is fairly consistent. Conservatives are significantly more liberal in general. And the primary reason is that Conservative are generally significantly more religious in general.

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

It seems that religious conservatives, which most, not all, conservatives are, do not look to government to take care of the poor, sick, hungry, etc. but do what they can to take care of that themselves.

It seems that the more liberals reject religion, the more they look to government to assume that role and they call that charity.

In fairness to liberals, religious liberals are also usually personally generous.

Now the question is: Does American conservatism tend to make people more religious? Or does American religion tend to make people more conservative?

This quote I provided is from the Brooks study, not from George Will's right wing blog.

Jesus was a liberal who preached social justice. Right wing conservative Christians preach God the avenger.

 

[Foxfyre]

Despite Bfgm's screeds trying to deny it, Brooks' research has been peer reviewed and peer reviewed and peer reviewed and the concusion is fairly consistent. Conservatives are significantly more liberal in general. And the primary reason is that Conservative are generally significantly more religious in general.

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

It seems that religious conservatives, which most, not all, conservatives are, do not look to government to take care of the poor, sick, hungry, etc. but do what they can to take care of that themselves.

It seems that the more liberals reject religion, the more they look to government to assume that role and they call that charity.

In fairness to liberals, religious liberals are also usually personally generous.

Now the question is: Does American conservatism tend to make people more religious? Or does American religion tend to make people more conservative?

This quote I provided is from the Brooks study, not from George Will's right wing blog.

Jesus was a liberal who preached social justice. Right wing conservative Christians preach God the avenger.

Well if you think Will got it wrong, so did 90% of others who have reviewed and commented on the study. And doesn't it make you feel really foolish to make stupid statements about Jesus and Conservative Christians?

 

[Bfgrn]

Despite Bfgm's screeds trying to deny it, Brooks' research has been peer reviewed and peer reviewed and peer reviewed and the concusion is fairly consistent. Conservatives are significantly more liberal in general. And the primary reason is that Conservative are generally significantly more religious in general.



It seems that religious conservatives, which most, not all, conservatives are, do not look to government to take care of the poor, sick, hungry, etc. but do what they can to take care of that themselves.

It seems that the more liberals reject religion, the more they look to government to assume that role and they call that charity.

In fairness to liberals, religious liberals are also usually personally generous.

Now the question is: Does American conservatism tend to make people more religious? Or does American religion tend to make people more conservative?

This quote I provided is from the Brooks study, not from George Will's right wing blog.

Jesus was a liberal who preached social justice. Right wing conservative Christians preach God the avenger.

Well if you think Will got it wrong, so did 90% of others who have reviewed and commented on the study. And doesn't it make you feel really foolish to make stupid statements about Jesus and Conservative Christians?

As I said in a previous post, the study has gone viral in the right wing echo chamber. The actual facts are unimportant to the right, they only look for ammunition to create propaganda. There is never any self examination or moderation from the right. So what you are saying is Brooks lied, because I provided a direct quote from his study.

In regards to Jesus, you are talking to a liberal who was raised Christian. So I know that Jesus preached social justice. And conservative Christians represent the biggest danger to this nation...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater


THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT AND THE RISE OF AMERICAN FASCISM
by Chris Hedges - Pulitzer Prize author was born in St. Johnsbury, Vermont, the son of a Presbyterian minister, the Rev. Thomas Hedges. He grew up in rural Schoharie County, New York, graduated from the Loomis Chaffee School in Windsor, Connecticut in 1975 and attended Colgate University where he received a B.A. in English Literature. He later obtained a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School, where he studied under James Luther Adams. He was awarded an honorary doctorate in May 2009 from the Unitarian Universalist seminary, Starr King School for the Ministry, in Berkeley, California.

 

[midcan5]

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." Dom Helder Camara

It seems that all one needs is to point to a study that purports that we are better than you, and presto all confusion ceases. I posted most of below a bit ago, but am too lazy at the moment to find link.

Religious people, be they conservative or liberal, tend to be more generous on the whole as that is a significant aspect of their life and of their values. Generosity though, runs across any barrier you can make up and tends to be personal rather than ideological. My mom, liberal with the exception of abortion, would give you her last cent.

Consider too that religious conservatives, in a sort of self congratulatory piety, contribute to churches that build huge Babel like edifices where they can sing their own praises. Look at the televangelists and you realize indulgences have returned, but this time they sparkle like a mass celebration of privilege. In the end what has done more good, Social Security or religious offerings which usually include salvation for the giver? When the so called charity monies are used to defeat the rights of other citizens, as they did in proposition 8, or enter into the political sphere, then if that is charity, you can keep your good work.

But Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army do good things, many good things. So while not all is cynical or expectant giving, pretending charity is not motivated by selfish goals is off base as well.

Personally, with the exception of the religious, all my friends and acquaintances who would classify themselves as conservative are less generous than the more liberal person. This makes sense to them, as they see their position as a reward or as expected. Conservatives rarely mention the hierarchical aspect of their ideology.

My aunt who was a sister of charity, for many years in some of the worst neighborhoods, would tell us that without big business gifts they could not carry on, helping others just has low appeal, helping yourself is another story.

Even Hobbes was empathetic and he is sometimes claimed to be the start of the more conservative view of mankind.

"A famous story is told about Thomas Hobbes, the 17th-century English philosopher, who argued that we all act in our own interests. On seeing him give alms to a beggar, a cleric asked Hobbes if he would have done this if Christ had not commanded us to do so. Yes, Hobbes replied, he was in pain to see the miserable condition of the old man, and his gift, by providing the man with some relief from that misery, also eased Hobbes’s pain. That reply reconciles Hobbes’s charity with his egoistic theory of human motivation, but at the cost of emptying egoism of much of its bite. If egoists suffer when they see a stranger in distress, they are capable of being as charitable as any altruist." Peter Singer What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You? - New York Times


"Can we be sure that our donation will really get to the people who need it? Doesn’t most aid get swallowed up in administrative costs, or waste, or downright corruption? Isn’t the real problem the growing world population, and is there any point in saving lives until the problem has been solved? These questions can all be answered: but I also point out that even if a substantial proportion of our donations were wasted, the cost to us of making the donation is so small, compared to the benefits that it provides when it, or some of it, does get through to those who need our help, that we would still be saving lives at a small cost to ourselves – even if aid organizations were much less efficient than they actually are." Peter Singer The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle, by Peter Singer