Real compassion vs. false compassion

[renard_ruse]

Its all the rage nowadays to claim to be "compassionate" and to "care for the downtrodden" and the "victims of society." Some even suggest that the surging support for the Democrat party and its socialist policies is because people want to "show they care" for those "less fortunate."

The question however is how do we define who is "downtrodden" or "victimized" in this day and age. Is a grown adult who is physically capable of getting a job, really a "victim" who needs help? Sure, the economy is bad, mostly because of the loss of our manufacturing base due to "free" trade, but there are still jobs. Its tough, but life is difficult at some point for most people.

Other people suggest that the "downtrodden" are the demographic groups that liberals claim are "victimized" by race, ethnicity, sex, lifestyle, etc. Yet, the civil rights movement was fifty years ago. Most people alive today don't even remember a time when any of these groups were legally discriminated against. These groups have the same opportunities as anybody, one could argue that they might even have more opportunities today.

Are you compassionate for those who really need compassion or is it just a fad to say you're compassionate and to hate those rotten meanies who don't care about the "victims" like you do?

 

[RoryN]

I feel sorry for you.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I define the downtrodden as folks who experience acts of God and misfortune...like Hurricane Sandy or are crippled by a drunk driver or their union steals the pension fund. There are lotsa things we have no control over, and experiences that are pretty tough to pick yourself up from.

The schools are open to every Nigga that wants to go, ditto the Spicks. Nuthin in their way but getting outta bed in the morning.

 

[renard_ruse]

I feel sorry for you.

You actually made a funny. I'm stunned.

 

[renard_ruse]

I am an extremely compassionate person by nature. However, I only allow myself to feel compassion to those that really need it or deserve it.

For example, I feel compassion for the plight of animals in factory farms, for unborn children at risk of abortion, and for the Palestinians. These groups are true victims which have no rights today and face indifferent or hostile attitudes from a large percentage of "mainstream" Americans.

 

[eyer]

The question however is how do we define who is "downtrodden" or "victimized" in this day and age.

Actually, renard...

...you've stated the problem, not "The question".

"we" only exists as an illegitimate, symbolic representation of individuals, since all individuals - in fact - are unique with, accordingly, individual viewpoints.

"we" can't define - it can only project a symbolic representation of the majority viewpoints of its individual members...

...regardless of the other individual viewpoints which don't agree with "we" at all.

That is exactly why democracy - majority rule - is a natural political enemy to individual liberty.

Under democracy ("we"), issues like you present above are voted on and then - according to majority result - instituted for all to obey, and individuals who object to the majority's rule are then persecuted in some fashion.

Individual liberty, though, naturally allows you to individually define "downtrodden or victimized" any way you care to, as I, too, am free to define them any way I wish; whatever "issue" you care to bring up, it doesn't matter how either of us individually define it...

...as long as our definition doesn't violate - in any way - the unalienable rights each individual is Created with.

That's why "a Republican Form of Government" is Constituted for this great nation...

...and not the democracy it's illegally become.

American republicanism is founded upon the absolute Supremacy of unalienable rights...

...those natural rights are Constituted above the reach of any "we" the framers absolutely were certain would follow.

Franklin was asked what the Constitutional Convention had produced. He replied:

"A republic...if you can keep it."

Alas, dear Ben...

..."we" has done taken it.

And unless you take your nose out of this continual "we" crap and put it back to the grindstone of keeping individual liberty paramount to all other "issues"...

...you deserve all the "mob" gives you.


[Cue America the Beautiful...

...or something.]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Since Niggaz get most of the abortions, and Nigga abortions take a major bite outta crime, I dont get why everyone isnt for abortions.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Actually, renard...

...you've stated the problem, not "The question".

"we" only exists as an illegitimate, symbolic representation of individuals, since all individuals - in fact - are unique with, accordingly, individual viewpoints.

"we" can't define - it can only project a symbolic representation of the majority viewpoints of its individual members...

...regardless of the other individual viewpoints which don't agree with "we" at all.

That is exactly why democracy - majority rule - is a natural political enemy to individual liberty.

Under democracy ("we"), issues like you present above are voted on and then - according to majority result - instituted for all to obey, and individuals who object to the majority's rule are then persecuted in some fashion.

Individual liberty, though, naturally allows you to individually define "downtrodden or victimized" any way you care to, as I, too, am free to define them any way I wish; whatever "issue" you care to bring up, it doesn't matter how either of us individually define it...

...as long as our definition doesn't violate - in any way - the unalienable rights each individual is Created with.

That's why "a Republican Form of Government" is Constituted for this great nation...

...and not the democracy it's illegally become.

American republicanism is founded upon the absolute Supremacy of unalienable rights...

...those natural rights are Constituted above the reach of any "we" the framers absolutely were certain would follow.

Franklin was asked what the Constitutional Convention had produced. He replied:

"A republic...if you can keep it."

Alas, dear Ben...

..."we" has done taken it.

And unless you take your nose out of this continual "we" crap and put it back to the grindstone of keeping individual liberty paramount to all other "issues"...

...you deserve all the "mob" gives you.


[Cue America the Beautiful...

...or something.]

You just gotta be a New England RINO.

 

[oggbashan]

This sounds like the 19th Century argument about only providing help to 'the deserving poor'.

Real compassion extends to those whose lifestyle you might disapprove of.

 

[eyer]

You just gotta be a New England RINO.

Karnack you ain't...