Practical Debating

[dairygirl4u2c]

actually you guys are right i didn't make it clear. in my examples, charities are failing to do what they need to do. i am referring only to my examples lest we get too generalized. if charities are failing, and a hard core refuses to get government involved, they can try to pick up charity themselves but they are only one person and cannot do it all. so, by logical deduction given their limits, they are effectively saying "smell of elderberries it up", unless they are willing to get government involved.
it's important to note as i think this is hwere i'm being misunderstood, i agree they are not saying "smell of elderberries it up" in that the person saying isn't going to do what they can, but given that they cannot do it all, they have to essentially say "smell of elderberries it up"


[quote]But this means that private and local bodies make an honest-to-God effort,[/quote]
i'm glad you acknowledge that government could theoretically get involved. as per theory discussion apart from the last examples, why do they have to make the honest to God effort... what if they simply don't care? isn't that enough to say they are "incompetent" and the government should intervene. this is a grayer terreritory i acknowledge. even for a hard core er to say it's a gray area would be sufficient for me to at least know they are not all hopelessly lost.

actually this theory discussion might be relvant to my examples. what if the charity failed by lack of people doing anything, and what if it failed by those that did exist that were doing charity did not do enough.this is getting much more complicated that i realized.

Edited November 8, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

actually, i think this is way too complicated of an issue to really discuss intelligently. this is the sort of thing you could write a PhD dissertation on. the only thing that's clear, is that it's not obviously one way or the other, and depends on the situtation. one of these days if i get time, maybe i'll do that.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1416109' date='Nov 8 2007, 09:57 AM']actually you guys are right i didn't make it clear. in my examples, charities are failing to do what they need to do. i am referring only to my examples lest we get too generalized. if charities are failing, and a hard core refuses to get government involved, they can try to pick up charity themselves but they are only one person and cannot do it all. so, by logical deduction given their limits, they are effectively saying "smell of elderberries it up", unless they are willing to get government involved.
it's important to note as i think this is hwere i'm being misunderstood, i agree they are not saying "smell of elderberries it up" in that the person saying isn't going to do what they can, but given that they cannot do it all, they have to essentially say "smell of elderberries it up"
i'm glad you acknowledge that government could theoretically get involved. as per theory discussion apart from the last examples, why do they have to make the honest to God effort... what if they simply don't care? isn't that enough to say they are "incompetent" and the government should intervene. this is a grayer terreritory i acknowledge. even for a hard core er to say it's a gray area would be sufficient for me to at least know they are not all hopelessly lost.

actually this theory discussion might be relvant to my examples. what if the charity failed by lack of people doing anything, and what if it failed by those that did exist that were doing charity did not do enough.this is getting much more complicated that i realized.[/quote]
Too many "theories" here . . .

What the concerned "true conservative" (or anyone else, for that matter) [i]should[/i] do about such situations is to volunteer if he is able; if he is not, encourage others to volunteer, support local charities, and encourage others to do the same, maybe organize a drive at his church or such, and work to support competent and good people in the local government.
If there is a situation (such as a large scale disaster) where locals simply are unable to do what needs to be done, then the federal government should get involved.
But simply saying that local people don't care, so the responsibility should be passed to the federal government is no excuse at all - that is nothing more than people shirking their responsibilities.

Liberalism is the philosophy of sloth and irresponsibility. The big-government liberal would rather shirk his own responsibilities, and instead pass the buck to the federal government; and rather than devote his own time, efforts or money, simply vote for higher taxes and more federal programs. Then, when the federal government fails to take care of the problem to his satisfaction, he blames Bush (or whomever) for "not caring" and pushes for even bigger government.

People today rely on government for many things which people used to do for themselves.
Thus the problem of dependency and socialism perpetuates itself.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it almost seems like pilate though. the people being neglected will just continue to suffer, if we refuse to help them when those who should do charity don't. "i wash my hands of it". not completely analogous but similar.

it seems you could argue, let the governent help them. the charities have the responsibliity you could argue, to make government not have to, but gov is always there.

i see that it's tough, because if you help with gov, that give few incentive for charity. but that's the charities they are culpable.
the bottom line is the chraity cases will continue to be neglected. as per this thread, "just smell of elderberries it up" does seem to be the case with conservatives, though there's always a way to get yourself not to face this.
nothing new under the sun after all.

Edited November 9, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, liberalism as a principle can often lead to the things you describe. but, you can't say you're liberal just because you might favor government intervention, sometimes. or even that some liberal ideas are all bad for the reasons you say.
it'd be like saying conservatives like bright line rules and simplicity at the expense of justice. which, as a general rule, conservatives are guilty of. and which, i'd argue, appears to be the case here and most other times someone tries to be status quo, text book pamphlet style conservative. but, that doesn't mean that someone who wants bright lines sometimes is a conservative guilty of injustice all the time, or that wanting brightline rules isn't sometimes warranted.
extreme liberalism and conservativism are artificial and sacrafice justice.

Edited November 9, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1416560' date='Nov 9 2007, 11:33 AM']it almost seems like pilate though. the people being neglected will just continue to suffer, if we refuse to help them when those who should do charity don't. "i wash my hands of it". not completely analogous but similar.

it seems you could argue, let the governent help them. the charities have the responsibliity you could argue, to make government not have to, but gov is always there.

i see that it's tough, because if you help with gov, that give few incentive for charity. but that's the charities they are culpable.
the bottom line is the chraity cases will continue to be neglected. as per this thread, "just smell of elderberries it up" does seem to be the case with conservatives, though there's always a way to get yourself not to face this.
nothing new under the sun after all.[/quote]
Appears you haven't paid attention to a word I wrote in the last post . . .

[dairygirl4u2c]

the dialogue so far is that. you said to my understanding, government can only help when it's something the locals simply cannot do. you said that if the locals can, but won't do it, the government cannot help. you ahve to try to get others to help, as much as you can, you said.
this isn't exactly clear that you said this stuff, but from what i can make out in your responses to me, it seems that way.

my response, was that saying, if the locals won't do it, as opposed to can't, and you try to rally charity, obviously you can't do it all. people will still suffer as they are neglected. this is what i was referring to as pilate for not getting voernment involved. obviously you wouldn't be pilate, as you're rallying charity.

also my pilate comment was somewhat simplistic in other ways. i can see on some issues like if you lose a job, that perhaps they should fend for themselves with only possibilities of charity. no govenrment should get involved, cause it'd be like stealing from the rich to give to the poor. and things like the guys who can't afford minimym wage or my health examples but are working, that's more justice where government has to someway get involved and this has nothing to do, IMHO, with charity.
so, with my pilate analogy, i'd be calling myself pilate when they lose a job. and there's no need for a pilate analogy for other things that demand justcie.
so, i retract my pilate analogy as bad form. i still retain it though, in that if justice demands government intervention, then it's like pilate to deny it. you'd of course object to when government is needed, and in your eyes it wouldn't be pilate like.
so my pilate analogy again is bad form, and should otherwise be retrated.

just FYI, all that stuff about in the minimum wage thread about the giant and families and indians and stuff forms my basis for "justice" and govenrment intervention, sometimes.

and i reiterate, this stuff is way too complex to discuss intelligently, IMHO. but, i see the world as complex usually, and others often see it simplistically, so others might disagree with me.

Edited November 11, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

as per the "just smell of elderberries it up" stuff. i would have to say "just smell of elderberries it up" in certain situations, but not all. if i misunderstand you, and you'd allow gov to get infolved anytime charity was not performing as it could, then you'd actually be saying it less than me, just smell of elderberries it up that is.
i'm not clear how much you say it relative to me, but from what i understand, you say it more than me. and it'd be big of you to admit it.

remember, givne that we both are for charity, we are not saying smell of elderberries it up in teh sense that wedon't care and won't help. just in other sense where charity can't or won't, whichever argument you hold, do its stuff.


also, there are points that charity is often referred to but is probaly misplaced. like, when i see someone who won't try to work, i probably won't help them. i guess it's charity if i help them, but i don't think i'm denying them true charity when i deny them. if you say i deny them charity, it implies as a christian i should give it to them and that's not the case here. that's why i distinguish charity and true charity.
this last paragraph is yet another example where i think this stuff is way too complicated to talk about intelligently. (depending on how you define intelligently, which is another example of how this stuff is complicated)

Edited November 11, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

Dairy, your posts are so convoluted, it's hard to make heads or tails of what you're trying to say (and I know I'm not the only one who has this problem), but you don't seem to be really addressing what I'm saying in my posts.

Basically, I'm saying that concerned people should work actively to make sure more is done at the local and private level. (And believe me, if people really put their heart and soul into doing this, they can get results. Passing the buck to the federal government may be the "easy solution," but its not the best, and tends to increase apathy on the local level.)
If people at the private and local level can get things done, they should.

You keeping begging the question by insisting in your example that people will refuse to act at the local level.
That is nonsense. I might as well insist that the federal government will do nothing.
You claim you're trying to bring the debate to the practical level, yet you insist on framing your questions in highly theoretical hypotheses in order to try to "trap" your opponents. That's not "practical debating" - that's empty sophistry.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think you think i'm trying to say government should be involved all the time which is not true.
i'm not trying to trap you. i just want you to be straight up. to me it appears you're being evasive.
sorry for being complicated, but, i think this is a complicated issue. i'll try to be simpler. and less convuluted.

as per the health care and homeless examples (homeless people who aren't lazy etc, and poor people who can't afford health care), all i'm saying is that government should be involved when the locals won't do anything but could and should. not gov as a permanent fixture, but on a case by case basis.

as per my examples, they illustrate that people fall through the cracks all the time. people don't like paying hte bills of others for charity. sure, charity does some things some times, and that is their proper role, usually. but, when they don't, and they should because they are capable, all i'm trying to do is argue that the government should get involved. do you agree with that proposition? would you agree that you have to say "just smell of elderberries it up" to the people who are not getting charity (when locals could and should but don't) and no government intervention?

if you don't like replying to my stuff above.... one specific example to focus.... A is a group of poor guys who need fairly prolonged and fairly expensive health care. they are not lazy or milking the good will of pepole and have jobs but are poor. no family who cares. people don't like the idea of paying for their bills and only give so much. without government, they likely may die. charity manages to take care of some of them, but not all of them, and not regularly enough. it's a fairly affluent locality which could take care ofthem if they wanted to. perhaps not christian enough given the lack of decent charity.
many localities have government programs for this situation. do you think the local government is wrong to do this if you were calling the shots?
do you think a higher government such as the state or the feds would be wrong for requiring the locals to act, or to intervene themselves?
if you think no government, do you think "just smell of elderberries it up" seems appropriate given that charity is failing them?
or are you proposing that people don't fall through the cracks of charity?

Edited November 12, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]or are you proposing that people don't fall through the cracks of charity?[/quote]
or that they rarely do?

if you argue they rarely do, that'd be a question of fact. research would need done. but, my guess is that what i described would be fairly common.

also, if you don't like my examples, please feel free to provide one yourself where you would allow the govenrment to intervene where the locality could and should use charity but does not, sufficienlty anyway. (so a natural disaster doesn't count as they are not capable) if you think government can never intervene in those siutuations, please be clear on this point.

Edited November 13, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

you don't have to respond to my examples. at least respond to the last post, and create your own. otherwise it's only clear you're being evasive. here it is in clarified form.

[quote]also, if you don't like my examples, please feel free to provide one yourself. where you would allow the govenrment to intervene where the locality could and should use charity but does not, sufficienlty anyway. (so a natural disaster doesn't count as something you can cite they are not capable) if you think government can never intervene in those siutuations, please be clear on this point.[/quote]

Edited November 20, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c