fringeelements:

jjarichardson:

fringeelements:

hamiltonstreetrailway:

U. S. President Obama
“Their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules. Well, I’m here to say they are wrong,” Mr Obama said.

from the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16061185

Straw man. Just because I don’t care about your group doesn’t mean I think everyone should “fend for themselves”. Just because I don’t want to pay for strangers who don’t share my values, who I don’t know, who would probably hate me if they knew me, doesn’t mean I want everyone to fend for themselves. I simply don’t care about YOU or YOUR GROUP. And unless you support a global welfare state, you are the same way to a degree. Is this really that hard to understand? Enough of the straw-manning and false dichotomies please.

People don’t deserve basic respect or well being because they disagree with you? How modest.

Thanks for lying about me. I don’t know what “basic respect” means. We’re talking about welfare and giving people money for not having a job. WHO has a claim on your money for not having a job? I say nobody, though I would be willing to help out a FRIEND or a COMRADE. This has nothing to do with “basic respect”. Basic respect would involve not demanding free shit from others, basic respect involves boundaries and property rights. Defending welfarism is the OPPOSITE of basic respect.

Well, it’s a moral matter of compassion, which is obviously variable and arguable. We obviously can’t hold equal friendship or comradeship with all individuals in society, but we can wish and defend the same degree of respect and good will to them. There is a degree of dignification to do so even towards someone you may have complete disagreement with. This includes defending the right of neo-Nazis to march, or wishing to spare the murderer of a close family member from capital punishment.