This post starts off with someone stating “You must understand the weird logic of the left. To them life is priceless and should always be prioritised over property”. I… I don’t really know what to say about this one. I mean, I don’t know how to explain to you that you should care about other people. None of this should be a hard concept or “weird logic of the left” but here we are. Why would anyone’s default be valuing property over human life? Things can be replaced or rebuilt, life cannot. That is not “leftist logic”, that is just logic. Anyway this post goes into great detail about this and it’s actually a great ethical discussion and very educational:
(via: Premium Internet Curation)
What do you think? Let us know in the comments!
To the right of the political spectrum, you find narcissism and sociopathy. Selfishness (the self is preeminent) rules their logic, beliefs, and decision makings.
To the left of the political spectrum, you find compassion and empathy. Selflessness (the self is part of the whole) rules their logic, beliefs, and decision makings.
It’s really that simple…..and it explains what this thread is trying to say without coming right out and saying it.
I refer you to the line “… they tend to view demographics as individuals” in hazeldomain’s post above. Even if the above is the stated view of the group as a whole, the group is made of individuals, with many differing versions of the view, and that’s where it gets complicated. By the logic of this post, your descriptions of the right and left are very conservative. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but it is how I see it.
I would say that if the right-side view is “the self is preeminent” then the left-side view is “the whole is preeminent”; if “the self is part of the whole” to the left-side, then “the whole is made up of the selves” to the right. Furthermore I contend that both sides are selfish; the difference lies in what they trust will do the thing that is most beneficial to them.
I could go on, but I think I’ve started enough of an argument already.
OUCH! But so true. Thank you for saying it.
I would sacrifice my family for the Statue of Liberty; the Mona Lisa; irreplaceable works of art; cultural history; symbols of truth, freedom, liberty that men and women already gave their lives for. I would personally sacrifice everyone in this thread who wouldn’t… I have weighed all the lives in the balance: it is a hefty price to pay and I pay it gladly
This would be a touching sentiment if the lives were yours to give. For my part, I’d gladly put all of the funds held by Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates et al. (leaving enough for them to live on) toward paying the national debt. But the money is not mine to spend.
If you would also sacrifice your own life for these cultural symbols, that I can respect. If not, you’re no better than I am.
“I would personally sacrifice everyone in this thread who wouldn’t… I have weighed all the lives in the balance: it is a hefty price to pay and I pay it gladly”
Reads as: I disagree, and these people are Bad, and I will gladly punish them by taking their life because of it. I have weighed and judged.
Your life is yours to give, no others. You do not own your family. If, like the curators of the Louvre, you are willing to sacrifice your own like to save a work of art, that is admirable. If you are willing to spend lives not your own to do so, that is despicable.
You’re obviously one of the basement trolls who gets off on communicating anonymous death threats to public figures to make yourself (falsely) feel powerful. Please do us all a favor and go find a work of art in need of a sacrifice.
Forcing others to die for YOUR beliefs is not noble or good and it certainly isn’t freedom.
And the worst part is that you actually thought that wasn’t directly proving their point about you.
everything in this thread is great and needed to be said, but I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that the initial post was tongue-in-cheek and written ironically, as a way to troll the very people who would be puzzled by this particular “logic of the left” 😉
On a more serious note (and having read it all, this is an amazing thread), the last post by bemusedlybespectacles touches on a couple of realizations I’ve had over the years. 1, children, because of their relatively short life experiences, basically don’t yet see the impermanence of anything. To them, everything will last forever, because in their experience, it has. When you yell at a child for standing at a light switch and continuously flipping it on and off that “you’re going to break that light switch!” that makes no sense to them, because they’ve never experienced something breaking through usage. Many conservatives of the type being described here are no more emotionally mature than children, and basically operate on the same level. 2, I read recently a great article explaining the psychology of someone who’s grown up in what have now become christian fundamentalist doomsday cults. They are indoctrinated to see the world as inherently wicked and people who haven’t joined them as an anointed one as only deserving of eternal punishment. Deep down, they believe the End Times are coming, and nothing short of that can improve anything about the world. This ties into the description here of societal problems as fundamentally unsolvable, which goes to explaining their responses to them. As stated above, they don’t truly believe anything can be improved or solved, so the only logical course is to just endure it all, and punish the wicked when you can. What a terrifying way to live.
“Your life is yours to give, no others.” The unborn baby’s life isn’t yours either. But most of these leftist descriptions of conservatives are nothing that applies to me and I am brightest. So I’m not sure if I’m confused or if leftists just think they know how we think and so the writers are getting their back patted by other leftists who also don’t know all of us. Let me say, I’d let any item be destroyed for any unknown life to be saved.