I disagree with you wholeheartedly on the political front, but I'm right with you on what we're actually debating.
Hearing fellow liberals claim that conservatives want the poor and disadvantaged to suffer is like hearing conservatives say that liberals just want to take money from the rich and give it to people who don't deserve it. Both arguments are shitty, and both either imply that the speaker isn't listening or doesn't want the audience to listen.
If you don't even try to figure out your opponent's assumptions, you should probably shut up and start listening.
Here's the thing you don't understand: Yes, conservatives do want the poor to suffer, because they think the poor are poor because they're too lazy to work hard and overcome their poverty. Making them suffer is the only way to make them contribute to society, in their view.
Also, yes, as a liberal, I do want to take money from the rich and give it to people who don't deserve it. That is exactly what I want to do. What do you think social welfare is? If you only give money to people who meet some arbitrary moral standard, you aren't helping everyone who needs help. I believe in universal income, universal healthcare, universal education, universal pensions, etc, etc. It has nothing to do with deserts.
One of the most honest comments in the entire thread. The problem is, both sides don't want to admit this. The conservatives because it makes them out to be assholes (and they'd never win another election again). The liberals because they think they'll lose the argument if they say they want income redistribution--everyone will jump on them and call them (unfairly) socialists or communists (yes, I know they're different), and they whither under such attacks.
Fundamentally, conservatives are people that are angry someone is getting something for nothing, and liberals are people that want to help the least privileged among us.
Until we can all come to terms with this, and logically come to terms with the idea that raising up the poor to a certain standard helps everyone, we're doomed.
No, in fact his comment and now yours are some of the only ones that dishonest about what the conservative position really is. It's a lot easier to paint people who disagree with you as fiends than it is to understand their point of view, which was the grandparent's entire point, which you and the parent have willfully missed.
So, what's your hypothesis? Instead of bitching, why don't you contribute?
Second, you seem to like his (our) position on liberals. Pot meet kettle.
Lastly, I came to this conclusion after many years of talking with conservatives (and watching them in action on TV programs) and reading their own words.
Reading your comment, I was reminded of a quote that I read quite recently: "If you don't even try to figure out your opponent's assumptions, you should probably shut up and start listening."
That's exactly the question I have for the rich. ;)
But no, seriously, that's the argument for wealth redistribution: the rich only are able to amass such wealth because of advantages they've accumulated for various reasons. If you're full-blown communist, it's due to the appropriation of the surplus labor produced by the proletariat. Therefore, you're just taking back what they took in the first place.
Now, you may disagree, but I figured since you asked, you might want an answer.
Thank you for this! As someone with mostly liberal friends and mostly conservative family, the willingness of both sides to judge and belittle the other while making no effort to understand their perspective drives me batty.
Hearing fellow liberals claim that conservatives want the poor and disadvantaged to suffer is like hearing conservatives say that liberals just want to take money from the rich and give it to people who don't deserve it. Both arguments are shitty, and both either imply that the speaker isn't listening or doesn't want the audience to listen.
If you don't even try to figure out your opponent's assumptions, you should probably shut up and start listening.