Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Hypocrites when it's time for action?


new2forum

Recommended Posts

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

An interesting opinion piece here that references 3 studies (One conducted by Google) that demonstrate that for all the crying and finger-pointing Liberals do, They are tightwads! (Words used in the article)

Conservatives (Who liberals accuse of being stingy, and only help themselves) donate 30% more of their money than Liberals according to one study, but in a newer study, we find it's now nearly DOUBLE!

This does not apply just to money. We find similar statistics when it comes to donating of their own resources and personal time as well. (Also known as volunteering)

I find this fascinating. It shows anyone can run their mouth (Including in a forum) - But when it comes time to actually give to the less fortunate, or volunteer time and money, it's the conservatives who deliver. What's that old saying again? Actions speak louder than words.

I also found it interesting that even when they tracked who was giving more blood, which group was at the top? Anyways, an interesting piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • new2forum

    11

  • J.B.

    4

  • Jack_of_Blades

    3

  • HerNibs

    2

What the article doesn't (tellingly) show, are what charitable causes benefit.

A charitable cause need not be the Red Cross, or Cancer Research, etc. It might be a political, or religious charitable organisation that has nothing to do with the wider community, but provides resource for the political party, or religious organisation alone.

In fact:

According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

Thus, to suggest that a disparity between different political ethoi means one is 'less charitable' than the other may be misleading.

The giving of charitable donations should not be a competition, anyway. While the article is blatant that is its aim is to embarrass liberals into giving more, charity should not be forced, coerced or required - but an act of....charity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can some one post the definition of a Liberal?

I'm not sure if I am one or not.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Leonardo, the MOST telling fact is that when it comes to donating of time, blood, and volunteering, Conservs also donate a disproportionately larger amount. THAT is what tells a bigger story.

What the article doesn't (tellingly) show, are what charitable causes benefit.

A charitable cause need not be the Red Cross, or Cancer Research, etc. It might be a political, or religious charitable organisation that has nothing to do with the wider community, but provides resource for the political party, or religious organisation alone.

In fact:

Thus, to suggest that a disparity between different political ethoi means one is 'less charitable' than the other may be misleading.

The giving of charitable donations should not be a competition, anyway. While the article is blatant that is its aim is to embarrass liberals into giving more, charity should not be forced, coerced or required - but an act of....charity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the article doesn't (tellingly) show, are what charitable causes benefit.

A charitable cause need not be the Red Cross, or Cancer Research, etc. It might be a political, or religious charitable organisation that has nothing to do with the wider community, but provides resource for the political party, or religious organisation alone.

In fact:

Thus, to suggest that a disparity between different political ethoi means one is 'less charitable' than the other may be misleading.

The giving of charitable donations should not be a competition, anyway. While the article is blatant that is its aim is to embarrass liberals into giving more, charity should not be forced, coerced or required - but an act of....charity!

If donations to all religious organizations were excluded?? Religious organizations are among the leading charitable organizations in the country. Its not like they take the money and put it in thier pockets (at least most dont). I donate to a religious organization that provides food clothes and medical needs to children over seas. I cant figure out for the life of me why that would be excluded.

I agree that it shouldnt be a competion. But it does point out the hypocracy of folks who preach a "share the wealth" mentality. And point the finger at folks who do donate thier money and time, as being selfish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, don't forget this one:

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

He tried to cook the numbers. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CONSERVATIVES - believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

LIBERALS - believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Believe that people are basically good.

Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people's problems.

Ok, per the definitions above, I'm a liberal AND conservative.

Hubby and I donate monthly to a couple of local charities. Both volunteer our time for each of these charities and some local women's shelters.

We usually run into "liberals" at these charities but I am going to guess that it is because the charities are not church run.

I don't care who gives more on either side, as long as it is given.

Nibs

Edited by HerNibs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the article doesn't (tellingly) show, are what charitable causes benefit.

A charitable cause need not be the Red Cross, or Cancer Research, etc. It might be a political, or religious charitable organisation that has nothing to do with the wider community, but provides resource for the political party, or religious organisation alone.

In fact:

Thus, to suggest that a disparity between different political ethoi means one is 'less charitable' than the other may be misleading.

The giving of charitable donations should not be a competition, anyway. While the article is blatant that is its aim is to embarrass liberals into giving more, charity should not be forced, coerced or required - but an act of....charity!

if you exclude religious donations then you must exclude red cross and salvation army because they are both churchs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If donations to all religious organizations were excluded?? Religious organizations are among the leading charitable organizations in the country. Its not like they take the money and put it in thier pockets (at least most dont). I donate to a religious organization that provides food clothes and medical needs to children over seas. I cant figure out for the life of me why that would be excluded.

I agree that it shouldnt be a competion. But it does point out the hypocracy of folks who preach a "share the wealth" mentality. And point the finger at folks who do donate thier money and time, as being selfish.

If that's what they were aiming for(The church donating elsewhere) more so than simply donating to a church they follow, why didn't they simply donate the money themselves to the other charities as the liberals do(According to this study that is).

Edited by ShaunZero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's what they were aiming for(The church donating elsewhere) more so than simply donating to a church they follow, why didn't they simply donate the money themselves to the other charities as the liberals do(According to this study that is).

Well, in my case, the church IS the charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CONSERVATIVES - believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

LIBERALS - believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Believe that people are basically good.

Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people's problems.

:lol: Um, if you believe people are basically good, wouldn't you say they can run themselves and the government shouldn't need to, because some basically good private citizen will do for the downtrodden what the Libs are trying to get the gov to do? Yes, the word hypocrite applies here I think. The /only/ reason you should trust the government over private citizens is if you believe private citizens are bad and need supervised. Sorry, the definition doesn't track here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should probably use percentage of income as the measurement for that. As for the Republicans, what charities are they donating to? I'm sure there are some groups out there that would feed right back into their party which would be called, very loosely, "charities."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If donations to all religious organizations were excluded?? Religious organizations are among the leading charitable organizations in the country. Its not like they take the money and put it in thier pockets (at least most dont). I donate to a religious organization that provides food clothes and medical needs to children over seas. I cant figure out for the life of me why that would be excluded.

They absolutely do, though. Giving to charity is the ultimate way to do nothing and thinking that you're doing something.

And why do you donate money to organizations that are working overseas when there are millions of people suffering in your own country, your own state, even your own town? If you're helping people close to you, you can see the money and time going to work. So please, don't give a cent to World Vision or whatever it's called and go down to your local orphanage or homeless shelter and actually do something.

(Sorry, not trying to single you out exactly, just people with your mentality.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fallacy of this entire issue is once again in the very first opening idea. That there are such things as "liberals" and "conservatives", like some sort of special or racial division between them, only living in reluctant equilibrium. This preposterously simplistic artificial construct of political and media masterminds yet maintains a baffling hold over the vast majority of people, who simply accept this as an established component of reality and society, even being taught this fiction in school, which at best, is unethical, and at worse, harmful to the child's ability to function in the real world.

Life is not binary, nor is any endeavor or aspect of Man or society, and while you can attempt to pigeonhole things into tidy little categories all you want, you're going to squash and break some things which just obviously do not fit where they're being put, and labeling the different fingers on a hand as different ideologies - useless obsessive-compulsive dumbing down training wheels and "pablum for the masses", in place of actual education and information to produce productive, thoughtful and creative people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fallacy of this entire issue is once again in the very first opening idea. That there are such things as "liberals" and "conservatives", like some sort of special or racial division between them, only living in reluctant equilibrium. This preposterously simplistic artificial construct of political and media masterminds yet maintains a baffling hold over the vast majority of people, who simply accept this as an established component of reality and society, even being taught this fiction in school, which at best, is unethical, and at worse, harmful to the child's ability to function in the real world.

Life is not binary, nor is any endeavor or aspect of Man or society, and while you can attempt to pigeonhole things into tidy little categories all you want, you're going to squash and break some things which just obviously do not fit where they're being put, and labeling the different fingers on a hand as different ideologies - useless obsessive-compulsive dumbing down training wheels and "pablum for the masses", in place of actual education and information to produce productive, thoughtful and creative people.

The labels of "conservative" and "liberal" also can allow people who are harmful to have in power, get into power. Its entirely possible for a Socialist, Communist, or Fascist to gain power in a free country as long as that person joins either the Republican or Democratic party (or any major party of any country). Because while that person may be Communist, Fascist, Socialist (or whatever else) he can simply hide behind the party's platform and use the party platform to gloss over and hide who he really is. So the people wind up electing this person in to power only to find out once he is there that he is nothing like they expected.

Edited by Tsukasa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could count for both 'conservative' and 'liberal' so when I donate and volunteer, I'm beefing up numbers for both sides. Therefore, I'm a better person than all of you. And that's all that counts- is how much better I am.

Right?

Edited by Roughneck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fallacy of your entire reply here is that you are speaking in an idealistic manner and attempt to ignore human behavior. For example, below you say: "You can attempt to pigeon-hole people all you want." Excuse me Paranormalcy, but have you missed the fact that people pigeon-hole themselves? Sure stereo-typing often results in little getting accomplished, but generalizing has its place.

It's a positive side effect of intelligence - the ability to see patterns, and respond accordingly. So it seems to me your response accomplishes little more than yelling at a cloud because it's raining. People are people and will behave as such. Me using the word "liberal" is a statement aimed at the people who label themselves as such. I made my post clear enough that any intelligent human can read, and see that it was referencing those who point fingers, attempt to make you feel guilty, yet do not even live up to their own standards, and in fact, perform at a lower degree than those they would insult.

Do you honestly believe that people who may consider themselves liberal, but do not fit the description above will be unable to distinguish? Give the people more credit than that. Humans are social creatures who group themselves together, not the other way around.It seems to me that your post was a long winded way to say "not everyone fits the mold." That's great. But do they still group themselves together? Almost from birth! School pride - school teams - Cities - States - Professional sports teams - Olympics - By company. In almost everything we do it's an us vs. them mentality. Birds of a feather.

With billions of people on this planet, it's difficult to wrap your head around "belonging" and "kinship" with that many people. But smaller groups with similar ideals? Again it's human nature and it seems to me that you pointed out an obvious truth with unrealistic high minded ideals attached. Ever called police officer cops? Ever used the term "the government?" Wouldn't that be you using labels, and pigeon holing all the people who work in such an establishment? Still humans the same as the rest of us, but they have such a label to describe their chosen professional function in society. Likewise, the labels of Liberal" or "Conservative" are labels picked up by the people to describe their own political views. Don't want the label? Then don't take it on! Like it or not, labels can and will be used - How can you communicate effectively without? Would you feel better having micro-descriptions and categories for every sub-set of beliefs?

I know, in a perfect world none of this would be necessary. But ideals must also consult with the realist of oneself. Expectations. What should be and what is rarely walk the same side of the street.

To sum it up - It's called having a common goal. Social classes are not going anywhere. Too heavily ingrained. You can rally against it all you want, but even the best of us would quickly tire of trying to change the human nature of billions.

The fallacy of this entire issue is once again in the very first opening idea. That there are such things as "liberals" and "conservatives", like some sort of special or racial division between them, only living in reluctant equilibrium. This preposterously simplistic artificial construct of political and media masterminds yet maintains a baffling hold over the vast majority of people, who simply accept this as an established component of reality and society, even being taught this fiction in school, which at best, is unethical, and at worse, harmful to the child's ability to function in the real world.

Life is not binary, nor is any endeavor or aspect of Man or society, and while you can attempt to pigeonhole things into tidy little categories all you want, you're going to squash and break some things which just obviously do not fit where they're being put, and labeling the different fingers on a hand as different ideologies - useless obsessive-compulsive dumbing down training wheels and "pablum for the masses", in place of actual education and information to produce productive, thoughtful and creative people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears you missed the point. The article merely points out the hypocrisy of pointing fingers, and making a big stink as the liberal media often does, when they don't even take the action they demand of others. It's a wake-up call nothing more. Not unlike a Biblical quote of extracting the straw from another persons eye.

I could count for both 'conservative' and 'liberal' so when I donate and volunteer, I'm beefing up numbers for both sides. Therefore, I'm a better person than all of you. And that's all that counts- is how much better I am.

Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they should have just focused down on the people pointing the fingers, vs. their specific targets, if they have any. As in, the specific liberals pointing fingers at certain conservatives. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then how would that be accomplished? It was an interesting comparison. The argument and finger pointing is used even on a personal level by those who associate themselves with the Liberal party. That particular "finger pointing" is how they justify some of the agenda's they wish to see enacted. Heck, I've been catching heat on this board simply because I don't like the idea of UHC. The first argument out the door thrown at me? "You must be selfish! You're responsible for people dying! If you saw someone falling off a cliff and could help them, you probably would just walk away!"

Pretty pathetic arguments, but they're used nonetheless. These studies showed the real numbers behind, and provides an interesting social insight int the correlation between the "entitlement" mentality, and the "take responsibility for your own actions" mentality. Just because there are tendencies there, does not mean there are not exceptions to the rule. You're going to find generous liberals, and you're also going to find stingy conservatives. But looking at the averages is what's going to tell us part of the story.

Maybe they should have just focused down on the people pointing the fingers, vs. their specific targets, if they have any. As in, the specific liberals pointing fingers at certain conservatives. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"But looking at the averages is what's going to tell us part of the story."

Only part? Then shouldn't we be looking for the rest of the story before arguing this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They absolutely do, though. Giving to charity is the ultimate way to do nothing and thinking that you're doing something.

And why do you donate money to organizations that are working overseas when there are millions of people suffering in your own country, your own state, even your own town? If you're helping people close to you, you can see the money and time going to work. So please, don't give a cent to World Vision or whatever it's called and go down to your local orphanage or homeless shelter and actually do something.

(Sorry, not trying to single you out exactly, just people with your mentality.)

Wow, COF, that seems kind of ignorant. Though giving money is not "doing something", it does help others tremendously. Would you suggest stopping giving money to charities, including stopping the US government from giving? Stop aid to Haiti?

Sure, people here in the US need help too, but there are dozens of organizations that provide for that. I've heard people say this about helping your own country over and over, and the ones that usually do are usually not giving a dime, and use the arguement as a crutch to feel better. I'm not saying that is what you are doing, but it certainly is limited.

I donate to Childfund, where I give 29 dollars a month and help put a Guatimalan girl through school and help her health. If I gave the same to help a US child it would not pay for even one shot, or one month of school per year. Giving overseas can affect others lives much more then it can affect people here. That is not an excuse, it is simply that I think I can help her more then I can help a US child.

The US government spends more then enough to be able to help everyone, if it could only root out waste and incompetance.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.