Quote:
Originally Posted by fash
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Their ethics are inconsistent if they argue forced redistribution is in some way moral. But you misunderstand what they're doing. They aren't arguing from morality nor are they reasoning. They are using rhetoric. It's a mistake to think you can argue against their rhetoric with logical reasoning. You have to use rhetoric yourself.
Most people who push the welfare agenda in a state like the US don't care about humanity as a whole. They are ignorant of welfare's effects, want the gibsmedats, or simply spout the my feels rhetoric to virtue signal.
|
I'm not actually looking to win an argument or persuade anyone. I'm trying to learn something. It fascinates me that intelligent people can arrive at radically different conclusions. I accept that my current understandings could always be wrong and that is why I shared these two questions.
For the most part I agree with the assessments in your first post. I don't see the difference between the two behaviors in my second point and I do not see a rational justification with regard to the detriment greater humanity as addressed in my first point.