Have any of you assholes even seen a dead body beyond your frozen grandma at the family wake? You are all whack for bandy abouting all of the deaths as so many statistics and trying to one up each other in feighned outrage. You are all just so sick!

i don't think we have to seen war to talk about it @Brad, and my outrage has been only to @Hauta's earlier comments saying i was giving Nazis a free pass.

It's ok James.

I geniunely was not aware more people died at the hands of the Japanese. Nor that the Japanese were far worse. Its not like I was salivating over being right or wrong.

Since Roe vs wade over 50 million children have died in the US alone. If you want to speak about genocide, that is both that and national suicide. And they were not all from rape, incest or the health of the mother. Not that many. And who cries for those children?

ooh the thread just got double derailed

So you are very passionate about the lives of children.

Tell me how many children you argued for in Sudan
Somolia
Congo
Syria
Iraq

Those death tolls of children exceed 50 million in 10 years.

You are very very concerned about the children obviously. So you must have been a staunch democrat arguing for food programs, AIDs research, contraceptive care, and against the Iraq War, in favor of intervention in Syria, pro - refugee entry into US to prevent more child deaths.

Ohhhhhh you only care about fetal tissue of unborn kids. Carry on Brad keep fighting for the unborn and neglecting the fuck out of the living.

Selective compassion is wonderfully satarised by G B Shaw.? in Pygmalion, on which "My Fair Lady" is based. Dividing.the unfortunates of the world into differing grades of more deserving of receiving charity/help and those less deserving of receiving charity/help.and those iniquitous wretches undeserving of any help is what might be described as a "traditionalist, anachronistic" way of viewing compassion for the less fortunate. Most suited to the self perceived as morally virtuous pontificating type imho.

@"that's a fair response and it addresses many different atrocities.

i also don't believe that you now are giving the Nazis a free pass."

Thank you.

@Randomizer
"You left off the US internment camps for the US Japanese descent citizens, the Swiss labor camps during WW II and afterwards the Allied Displacement Camps for refugees."

I left off lots of things, British Indian deaths due to starvation, French slave labour camps for german POWs used to rebuild france after WW2. But they did not help illustrate the point the ALL empires have certain behaviours towards their victims.

There are other examples where groups in power abuse it, but point was merely on the generalised human suffering caused by Imperialism. So i focused on the four big Empires. I only briefly touched on the French, and ignored the Russian Empire and Soviet Union (and China) entirely, bot because those aren't important examples, (i also ignored the Belgian Congo, which was arguably one of the worst attrocities); but because i wanted to take examples of two 'good guys' and teo 'bad guys' and categorise them in the same category.

I wasn't trying to make an extensive list of all Imperial attrocities - if you want that, please look up wikipedia. I'm sure you can find it, probably make for some though reading though.

And my over all point was against this comparison of 'who was the worst' - because i don't think knowing the Nazis kill X million while the Japanese killed Y, actually helps understand human nature. You just end up demonising people and imaginig they are not like you.

This hides your own people's attrocities, because they can't possibly be as bad as 'the worst'. But it is this general category of behaviours which is bad... Yes the Nazis are remembered as 'the worst evil' of the 20th century. But i believe that just gives other a pass, more importantly it allows current dictators abuse their populations and defend their actions by saying 'well, we're not as bad as the Nazis.'

Nazis were humans, not demons. Same with the Japanese, the Americans and the British. And i believe we should understand why humans keep committing these atrocious crimes.

Well said, ora.

re: the original post - my story.

I work at a building that gets panhandlers all the time. if they come in asking for money for food, and then you offer them some food and they refuse... they didn't want the money for the sake of food. One guy asked for gas money. I offered to take him to the gas station and fill up his tank for him. He declined. What did he really want the money for, if not for gas? One person came in three times (over the course of a year) to tell us his grandmother died. I remember because he had a distinctive voice, and yet the story was the same. Now maybe the poor man had some strange family situation where all three of his grandmothers died in the the course of the same year but... that seems pretty unlikely.

As for panhandlers themselves, standing on exit ramps - A couple years ago, I'd frequently see panhandlers along my commute route. I used to throw them spare change. I quickly lost interest in helping them out of their destitute situation when I saw someone halfheartedly waving her "homeless" sign while texting on the new iPhone that had come out two weeks ago. Once she put her phone away, the costume looked normal again. I've been homeless before. Expensive electronics and staking out a high-traffic area wasn't what it looked like.

I'm all for helping those in need, and there is certainly a moral argument to be made for doing just that. (fwiw, early Christians made helping the poor a central point of their ministry. If you're the sort that hate Christians on principle, at least do us the favor of checking out the numbers on how private religious charities compare with public charity). However, it is just as important to make sure that those you're helping aren't taking advantage of the handout, and that the help you give has a lasting effect. (Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime... etc.) Wouldn't it make sense that there are more and less effective ways to help? Perhaps the idea of a cash handout only seems attractive because there is little personal investment, and it seems more manageable centralized bureaucratic perspective.

One place I worked had a solution that worked well locally - we never gave out money, but had a food pantry (canned goods, mostly) and a thrift store of clothes and personal care products (so you could shave/wash for a job interview). Perhaps there are better ways to help people than posting screed on the internet

@orathiac - you said "It turns out that the easiest way to end poverty and homelessness is to simply give people money. It has been shown to be highly effective on a number of occassions in experimets."

Do you have a link to the documents that show this? I've not heard this claim, so I'd love to read more.

@brain - That argument is so tired, disrespectful, and (imho) offensive. The pro-life generation cares a lot for infants and children and adults of all ages. If you're not able to see that, then you're probably not aware of all the other things we do to help people of all ages. In a spirit of friendly cooperation and learning, I encourage you to go check out a crisis pregnancy center. Tour a private Christian or even-generically-conservative school. Find any number of the charities privately run by religious groups. They're not out there to make a profit - they're there to help. Educate yourself on this. Unless you're also claiming that "the progressive statist way is the only REAL way to help children," then please cut out the disrespectful attack on prolife character or motivation.

Ugh I got trolled. Sorry guys.

Brainless bomb. So narrowminded. Many time I have posted other pro life and post natal support actions but alas you are so angry at your life you have to try to drag down mine...Sad!

Christian non-profits have no business taking money from the state.

So close all of those religious hospitals that provide free medical care to the poor?

Shutter all of the shelters that house the homeless because they are run by a religious order.

Brad, what's the difference between Christian hospitals receiving money from the state and Planned Parenthood receiving money from the state? At least with PP, there's no "separation of church and state" issue. I'm sure some of the money to the Christian hospital goes towards maintaining the Christian-ness of the hospital, right? Maybe there's a sanctuary or staff member who can give spiritual guidance. That costs money, right? What are your thoughts? Can't the Christian-run homeless shelters survive on the charity of good folks like yourself?

Christian run hospitals (in Ireland) have become a major political issue in recent weeks.

'Upholding their catholic ehtos' means no IVF, no surrogacy, no abortions (duh, not a huge issue as they're illegal in most circumstances in ireland), basically nothing which requires interacting with an embryo... The problem being a planning national maternity hospital (300 million euro of tax payer's money) being built on land owned by some nuns.

And included in the plan was transfering ownership of the new hospital to the nuns. Because why not?

Of course all this amounts limiting patient choice in the interest of a 'catholic ethos' - basically the Pope in Rome gets to decide which medical procedures are un-Catholic, and thus have undue influence in our (so-called) Republic.

@Hauta

"Brad, what's the difference between Christian hospitals receiving money from the state and Planned Parenthood receiving money from the state?"

because Planned Parenthood offers a wide range of service, including abortion, which many people don't want to be forced to pay taxes to fund. now don't yell, i do know that the government is not legally allowed to fund abortions, but they're still allowed to fund planned parenthood in its entirety, and through shifting funds from different services around, PP can in fact perform more abortions with taxpayer money.

Usually, christian hospitals only provide a basic level of care, and do not touch on such a contentious issue. nowadays the right wing platform is less and less "no abortions" and becoming more "don't make me pay for it."


"At least with PP, there's no "separation of church and state" issue."

actually that's not what separation of church and state is, what that means is that there shall be no preferable treatment or recognition by the state of any one religion as above the others. while i'm not for federal funding of religious entities, if communities na d municipalities want to fund christian shelters for the good of the people, nowhere in the constitution does it say anything against this. the actual line of "separation of church and state" only ever appeared in a letter the Jefferson wrote to a priest in response to his worries about state persecution.


"I'm sure some of the money to the Christian hospital goes towards maintaining the Christian-ness of the hospital, right? Maybe there's a sanctuary or staff member who can give spiritual guidance. That costs money, right? What are your thoughts? Can't the Christian-run homeless shelters survive on the charity of good folks like yourself?"

1. spiritual guidance advisors usually are church sanctioned, which means that the funds are separate from the hospital. at least that's true with my experience anyways.

2. ever since the left began a culture war against religion completely demonizing it as idiotic, we've seen charitable donations (per capita, with inflation adjusted) we've still seen an increase in charity, HOWEVER, this is becoming more and more a partisan issue. read the book "Who Really Cares?" or some of its analyses, i'm sure they're online, conservatives are far more generous than liberals.


@orathaic

"Christian run hospitals (in Ireland) have become a major political issue in recent weeks."

using beer as an IV turned out to be a bad idea, didn't it? damn.

"'Upholding their catholic ehtos' means no IVF,"

so? you don't have a right to demand that hospitals provide you the service of getting impregnated easier. it's like asking for healthy food at mcdonalds, you should go somewhere else if you want it.

"no surrogacy,"

so???? once again, why do these hospitals HAVE TO provide a service to these people? and unless if the country has laws against it (which i would support repealing) then why doesn't anyone make a start up with these services? clearly there's a market demand for it if it has reached popularity status of "talked about on webdip forums."

"no abortions (duh, not a huge issue as they're illegal in most circumstances in ireland),"

we can get into this debate, but i also don't want to derail the thread. all i'll say is why do christian hospitals HAVE TO offer the service?

"basically nothing which requires interacting with an embryo... The problem being a planning national maternity hospital (300 million euro of tax payer's money) being built on land owned by some nuns."

oh well that's bullshit. like if it's a series of community hospitals that happen to offer these services then that's one thing, but if Ireland is going for a nationalized healthcare system then i don't know what the hell they're doing over there. maybe they should take the beer IV out huh?

"And included in the plan was transfering ownership of the new hospital to the nuns. Because why not?"

they need some American values to get their shit together

"Of course all this amounts limiting patient choice in the interest of a 'catholic ethos' - basically the Pope in Rome gets to decide which medical procedures are un-Catholic, and thus have undue influence in our (so-called) Republic."

i mean if you have a single payer system then this is bullshit, i'll stand by that every day of the week.

*DOWN WITH SINGLE PAYER. DOWN WITH SINGLE PAYER*

We don't quite have a single payer system, we have a mixed public-private system.

But this is 'The' National Maternity Hospital (hence my references to very specific maternity related healthcare choices).

Second is the brand new hospital being built to replace the old NMH, that is a government capital expenditure for a hospital which is being given to a charity.

And last issue is, the rules for a National (public) Hospital being determined by a different head of state (the Pope is the head of the Vatican city, and determines the rules for what is acceptable under a 'Catholic Ethos', that is a 'seperation of Church and State' issue - even if we have no constitutional clauses refering such a seperation...

wtf ireland hahaha

"
2. ever since the left began a culture war against religion completely demonizing it as idiotic, we've seen charitable donations (per capita, with inflation adjusted) we've still seen an increase in charity, HOWEVER, this is becoming more and more a partisan issue. read the book "Who Really Cares?" or some of its analyses, i'm sure they're online, conservatives are far more generous than liberals."

----
MIT political scientists Michele F. Margolis and Michael W. Sances that found that, for individuals, the "relationship between conservatism and giving vanishes after adjusting for income and religiosity." In other words, conservatives are more likely to be wealthy and more likely to give to their churches than liberals.

Margolis and Sances also argue that, "At the state level, we find no evidence of a relationship between charitable giving and Republican presidential voteshare." Consider this new Chronicle study, then, another interesting rhetorical salvo in the ongoing debate about which side of the American political spectrum is more generous hearted, but not the final one.----

@brainbomb

why do they need to adjust for religiosity? that seems like the whole pinnacle of why conservatives donate more.

Every study I find keeps implying Republicans give upwards of 10% of their imcome tp the church.

Perhaps I missed something maybe you can fill in Yanik. Since when is donating to the church the same as charity?

The church can deem anything they want charity. But certainly the church is not going to donate to certain things. Its like dumping tons of money at the door of a reverend and saying... I dont care what cause you spend this on! I TRUST YOUR JUDGEMENT.

But what is the church paying for with donation money?

"
For instance, a local fundamentalist church may spend the bulk of its resources degrading and attacking other faiths, insulting gay people and leading crusades to strip people of their civil liberties. They may never feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted. Yet in IRS terms they are a charity no matter how uncharitable they may be.

The report states that the IRS “does not provide data about the specific charities people supported.” In other words, there is no data about who is feeding the poor, as Donahue claims.

Since donations to religious groups, even uncharitable ones, count as “charitable giving,” then it is no surprise that religious people give more to charity. Simply put, the study shows that non-religious people don’t donate to religion. This is neither earth shattering nor particularly informative. Nor is it surprising that those states populated by sects that push their members to tithe report higher “charitable” giving.

Donations to churches may get reused in a manner that would not be tax-deductible itself, as it would not be considered charitable. For instance, donations to the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, are tax-deductible. Yet the organization gave almost $2 million to fund anti-gay campaigns by the National Organization for Marriage. If the “charitable” Catholics who gave that money had directly donated it to NOM, they would never have received a tax write-off.

However, if you donated to the Human Rights Campaign to counter campaigns funded by the Knights, that donation “can not be classified as tax deductible.” Only one funds given to the churches in this political campaign were counted as charitable.

It is not surprising that the most “giving” state is Utah, with a heavy population of Mormons who are required to give 10% of their income to the sect. Their total charitable giving is 10.6% of discretionary income — a substantial portion of which has to be going to the church as opposed to purely charitable purposes.

But neither Jacoby nor Donahue mentioned West Hollywood, a heavily Democratic city and one of the “gayest.” The survey shows residents there give 9% of their discretionary income to charity. I would think most of that went to purely charitable purposes as opposed to religious ones.
"

Members of Westboro Baptist church give nearly 30% of their income to the Church.