Originally posted by no1marauderSince we are talking about religion, we might as well admit the doctrinaire overtone of the OP: we are all born perfect (e.g. kind) and then corrupted by other lost souls (e.g. the rich) who tempt us with money to sin (e.g. not love our fellow man.) Sounds a lot like That Old Time Religion to me.
Some of the discussions with the Religion of the Free Market types here got me thinking; why are they seemingly so proud that they have utter unconcern for others? Well it turns out that this is a growing phenomenon (perhaps psychosis is a better term). An article in Psychology Today is informative:
Shocker: Empathy Dropped 40% in College Stude ...[text shortened]... nsequences.
Thoughts?
Given your posting style, no1m, I'm a little reluctant to accept being lectured to by you about showing more empathy!
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358More Straw Man argumentation from you. The OP said nothing like your absurd claims.
Since we are talking about religion, we might as well admit the doctrinaire overtone of the OP: we are all born perfect (e.g. kind) and then corrupted by other lost souls (e.g. the rich) who tempt us with money to sin (e.g. not love our fellow man.) Sounds a lot like That Old Time Religion to me.
Given your posting style, no1m, I'm a little reluctant to accept being lectured to by you about showing more empathy!
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm beginning to think you don't even know what a straw man argument is.
More Straw Man argumentation from you. The OP said nothing like your absurd claims.
Your OP lead with the goal of disparaging "the Religion of the Free Market types," and there was further discussion around perverting Calvinism to justify holding wealth. But the discussion in the Psychology Today article is clearly a "Man's Fall From Grace" narrative which poses the question, "How do we rid ourselves of sin and return to the Garden of Eden" where everyone is nice to each other?
No one proposed free market philosophy as a religion -- you did that. So if anyone is guilty of a straw man, it is you. It's then just a bit comical for you to use an article that apes a classical religious doctrine to criticize a "religion" YOU assert exists!
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358I know exactly what a Straw Man argument is and your characterization of the article is clearly one. It hardly apes the "Eden scenario" and is based on scientific and economic evidence not blind faith or fairy tales. There is no claim of Man's original perfection, no claim that the efforts of the "rich" have altered human nature and no claim that having less wealth will lead to greater happiness. Since that is how you characterized the article, your argument is a Straw Man.
I'm beginning to think you don't even know what a straw man argument is.
Your OP lead with the goal of disparaging "the Religion of the Free Market types," and there was further discussion around perverting Calvinism to justify holding wealth. But the discussion in the Psychology Today article is clearly a "Man's Fall From Grace" narrative whi hat apes a classical religious doctrine to criticize a "religion" YOU assert exists!
I call your unreasoning faith in the free market a "religion" because, like other religions it is completely based on faith and completely ignores evidence. When you prattle on about anyone being able to simply borrow large amounts of money to pay for healthcare it is apparent to virtually everyone that this belief is about as logical and related to reality as a belief in Flying Spaghetti Monsters.
Originally posted by no1marauder"Religion of the Free Market types here got me thinking; why are they seemingly so proud that they have utter unconcern for others?"
Some of the discussions with the Religion of the Free Market types here got me thinking; why are they seemingly so proud that they have utter unconcern for others? Well it turns out that this is a growing phenomenon (perhaps psychosis is a better term). An article in Psychology Today is informative:
Shocker: Empathy Dropped 40% in College Stude ...[text shortened]... nsequences.
Thoughts?
Beginning with an attacking distortion isn't likely to engender thoughtful discussion, but despite this I read on.
Empathy is one of those things that is slippery to define, and even more difficult to measure. As you observe about midway, self esteem falls into this same problem, because today's self esteem doesn't requite any accomplishment.
Today's empathy doesn't require any action, or personal contribution or value given. Today's empathy is group think, not any true individual, rational emotion. Today's compassion isn't action generated by individual feeling of wanting to help someone else, but dubiously most of it is based on guilt trips engendered by propaganda of various "progressive intellectuals" who proscribe what others must do to be compassionate or show empathy.
Originally posted by kbear1kI blame Obama, with an equal share going to Bush43. A succession of Presidents share blame, going back to Woodrow Wilson under whom we got the individual income tax and the Federal Reserve.
You are one nutty fellow to blame this on Obama. What about Bush Jr. who placed the future tax burden of the nation onto the middle class by cutting taxes on the rish. I'll bet you may even claim to be a Christian. Ormaybe you are a slimy follower of Rand.
"Ormaybe you are a slimy follower of Rand."
Like that would be worse than maybe you are a follower of Marx?
Originally posted by dryhumpI don't know. There are so many people who have news aversion. When the news comes on, they change channels. Many don't read anything except the headlines, and often don't understand them.
I'll grant that this thought is not scientific, but I wondered if the constant stream of bad news shouted at folks 24/7 by news outlets "hardens the heart" so to speak.
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
Originally posted by normbenignSorry pal, i'm no Marxist but at least I've read his works and realize that he made some good observations. I've also read many of Adam Smith's works and understand that even he believed that government intervention into the economic affairs of its citizens was necessary. Rand wrote great fiction but that was about it. Her ideas regarding how society should run itself were self-centered and juvenile and she paled compared to Mark at the intellectual level.
I blame Obama, with an equal share going to Bush43. A succession of Presidents share blame, going back to Woodrow Wilson under whom we got the individual income tax and the Federal Reserve.
"Ormaybe you are a slimy follower of Rand."
Like that would be worse than maybe you are a follower of Marx?
A
What is wrong with the income tax? How do you propose to run a modern state without one?
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
Originally posted by FMFOK - compared to other works...say by Hugo, Melville, the list goes on and on... you're 100% correct :>😉
I would say it was artless, sterile and clunky, rather than "great".
(I was trying to be nice to those who admire her works.) To be truthful, I also liked Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead when I was 19 but move on.
Originally posted by kbear1kMy question was simply to high light the nature of your comment. I would attack Marxists, not because they've read Marx, but because of the intellectual and practical failings of marxism.
Sorry pal, i'm no Marxist but at least I've read his works and realize that he made some good observations. I've also read many of Adam Smith's works and understand that even he believed that government intervention into the economic affairs of its citizens was necessary. Rand wrote great fiction but that was about it. Her ideas regarding how society should ...[text shortened]...
A
What is wrong with the income tax? How do you propose to run a modern state without one?
Most libertarian writers and thinkers recognized the necessity of government, and Ayn Rand did as well, though most of her followers would argue she wasn't a libertarian. Anyone who sees her as an anarchist just didn't read what she wrote or didn't understand it.
Even the most avid free market advocates recognize government and a system of law as a necessity to a functioning free market. A minimum of government, which still assures equality under the law, and economic liberty as well as transparency.
The individual income tax, was viewed with disdain by the founders, as the Constitutional limitations on it show. It is inefficient as well, invasive requiring massive record keeping, and it is divisive. We've had one in the US for less than a century.
Originally posted by kbear1kI did not read either until in my 50s, and never liked "Fountainhead", but found "Atlas Shrugged" very much artful. A teacher, about ten years before that, AMFA in photography told me that art provoked thought, and caused people to look a second time. Almost everyone I know who has read AS goes back to it, not because some preacher gives chapter and verse in a Sunday sermon, but because they remember something that coincides with the events of the day.
OK - compared to other works...say by Hugo, Melville, the list goes on and on... you're 100% correct :>😉
(I was trying to be nice to those who admire her works.) To be truthful, I also liked Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead when I was 19 but move on.
Originally posted by normbenignThere came a point in my life when I realised that 90% of the 'News' was really just entertainment. It had no real impact on me and frequently gave me a false picture of the world. I currently hardly ever watch the new on TV (but then I don't watch much tv anyway). I get most of my news of the internet, but even there, at least 90% of it is of no real importance and it would really make very little difference if say I watch last years news, or the news from 10 years ago.
I don't know. There are so many people who have news aversion. When the news comes on, they change channels. Many don't read anything except the headlines, and often don't understand them.
However, if I do watch the news, I do understand the head lines.
My point here is that people who watch the news compulsively and act like it is a duty for every person to do so are deceiving themselves. In reality it is largely an entertainment show, and people need to recognise it as such.