Recent Comments by Doc_M subscribe to this feed

Dr Phil on David Letterman

Christianity's "Good News" Summed Up Perfectly

Christianity's "Good News" Summed Up Perfectly

Christianity's "Good News" Summed Up Perfectly

Christianity's "Good News" Summed Up Perfectly

Doc_M says...

I just don't get atheism. Where's the hope? Even if you lived a long life and passed on your genetic information to the next generation, you're still going to be forgotten eventually. Even if it takes a trillion years, you just don't matter. Unless humanity acquires immortality some time soon, life just doesn't matter for an atheist. I don't think I could live that way. You can say you'll live for the moment, but you won't remember it, so who cares?! What's the advantage? Atheism is depressing.

Bioshock 3 Trailer! : Bioshock Infinite... Cooooool

Free Lunch Project! (Fear Talk Post)

Doc_M says...

We're more or less on the same page, but the fact about socialist nations being more charitable misses my point and taken alone is a bit misleading. The info on that link is charity given by governments, not individuals. It's not surprising that a socialist nation would be at the top, since that is by definition, socialism.

"To qualify as official development assistance (ODA), a contribution must contain three elements: 1.) be undertaken by the official sector (that is, a government or government agency); 2.) with promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; and 3.) at concessional financial terms (that is, with favorable loan terms.) Thus, by definition, ODA does not include private donations."

This is still enforced "compassion". Actual compassion by the individual person is not required. That is taken care of by their government, removing the responsibility from the individual and thus from their consideration and common practice.

Here are some statistics about personal charitable giving:
http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/International%20%20Giving%20highlights.pdf
The US is at number one with a 1.67% of GDP giving rate (2005). If that has continued to this day, that puts the US's charitable giving (by the individual people, not the government) at $238 billion (each year). If the US gov't looks a bit cheap when it comes to aid, look to the people. Tthe citizens of the USA are remarkably giving, though they choose to do so individually rather than by governmental proxy... and that's clearly verifiable, not rhetorical.

I'm not saying that "government led 'charity'" is somehow wrong or worthless, but as one might expect, it is [roughly] inversely proportional the personal giving of the citizens of the country. Makes sense. From my point of view, government "charity" is not ideal, since I would rather have more to do with the decision about where my "giving" goes.

"giving tends to represent a lower proportion of GDP in countries with higher levels of personal taxation, particularly social insurance; if social insurance payments were to rise in the future because of the needs of an ageing population, this could represent a threat to voluntary income" (above linked report)

Free Lunch Project! (Fear Talk Post)

Doc_M says...

Libertarianism is not the antonym of socialism, but of authoritarianism.
It is as broad as any other political ideology. Libertarianism is not anarchism, just as socialism is not communism.
Minimizing government is not eliminating government. The "minimum" clearly includes infrastructure, security, and justice, amongst other things.

In a small society, charity is the libertarian welfare, a personal decision to care for those who need care. In a large society such as ours, some level of gov't involvement and social organization is useful (quite possibly even required) for support of those who would otherwise slip through the cracks. Given good enough organization, charity could manage care, but some amount of socialism seems to be required for the simple fact that not all people are generous or compassionate. However, to generate a society in which these two virtues are completely irrelevant is socially self-destructive, perpetuating a child-like state of apathetic obedience. When government enforces compassion, the word becomes meaningless.

Proof that American Voters are Morons (Politics Talk Post)

Doc_M says...

1) I've met tons of moderate republicans. I'm sure you have as well. The far-righties are just louder.
2) I'm referring to the far left as a person on the left would define them, not as one on the far right would.
3) Case in point. =/ I knew I should have picked a different example.
4) I don't know where you were going there. I was talking about the economy itself being complex and consisting of many variables itself, and that most people, myself included, don't fully understand it well enough to make an informed decision. My argument that followed was not about what stance on economic systems is right, it is about the reason why people vote the way they do on economic issues. My personal stance is irrelevant, and anyway, defining a large system of political viewpoints as one buzz-word isn't helpful to anyone... except perhaps media pundits.

Proof that American Voters are Morons (Politics Talk Post)

Doc_M says...

"it's certainly true that a much larger percentage of conservatives are likely to answer "I don't trust either party" in polls, even if they reliably go into the voting booths to give the Republican party power.
The big problem is that they don't find that to be contradictory in the slightest."

Lesser of two weevils voters. It's not really contradictory. They stay with their party because of worldview-based judgments of which party stands more in line with their stance on the majority of issues... this of course excludes people who just don't really think much about it and just plop their vote in where they always have... or where it's "hip" with their crowd.

Proof that American Voters are Morons (Politics Talk Post)

Doc_M says...

"The Left is far more critical of Obama than the Right ever was of Bush."

Bush's approval rating was terribly low... That wasn't all liberals.
It is definitely true that the far right wing is not critical enough of its leaders, but there is plainly a large population of republicans that are not in the far right category. Also, in the current political climate, republicans seem to have been less and less satisfied with just about all current politicians.
The far right has had a worshiper mentality about their leadership. It's annoying.
The far left, on the other hand, are never satisfied with their leaders because they don't go far enough. The tea party has recently taken up this attitude as well. In their eyes, the right has not gone far enough either.

"There are still cons out there who insist Iraq had WMDs."
True, but on the other side, there are plenty of liberals that believe things that are equally outlandish... 9/11 comes to mind.

"And very few if any of them lay the blame of the deficit on Bush's shoulders."
True, but that level of economics is extraordinarily complicated, given the sheer number of variables. I don't really understand it well enough to form much of a solid stance... and I think more people should be willing to admit that honestly. Economically, people stand on ideology more than evidence. A "small government" person, such as myself, will always lean toward lower taxes and less government involvement in every day life... which in theory might work economically since a smaller government would cost less. A "large government" person supports higher taxes and more social and economic government involvement, which in theory might work economically as well... It's ideological. People start with the ideology and their image of the perfect government, then fit an economic model that will support it. (I should note that these two groups don't necessarily belong in one or the other party exclusively). That view of the perfect government trumps just about everything else, and maybe rightly so. In theory, each system could be made to work if done right, so the question is not how to fix the economy, but how to do so within a specific, underlying ideology.

Proof that American Voters are Morons (Politics Talk Post)

Doc_M says...

This really isn't a measure of what it seems.
Since [most of the time] democrats simply don't trust republican leaders and vice versa, you can assume that the trustING are in the same party as the trustED almost all the time.

You should look at "who you intend to vote for" and set that equal to 100% for each party and look at the other two questions as a percentage of that within that party.

Under this analysis, republicans are more wary of their leaders than democrats are of theirs', but that doesn't change the fact that very few people are willing to vote against their own party, that is, the party that fits with their ideology. That makes a TON of sense to me in our current system and explains the apparently confusing results of the polling.

Get Off the Phone Right Meow!

Jinnai Tomonori's Tetris Standup Comedy

Times Square Bomber on Serveillance Video



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon