Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
It’s my body, not the governments
Replies
-
tbright1965 wrote: »It comes down to what is compassion? Like love, it's not merely a feeling. True compassion is a verb, it's an action.
So voting to have someone else take money from one to help another isn't really an action. Certainly not an action on the part of the one who claims to have compassion.
They may be empathetic. I'm sure they have very real feelings for those whom they believe need help. But I wouldn't call those empathetic feelings compassion.
Much like hope and prayers we see bandied about when some gun or terrorism tragedy occurs. No real action, no real help for those impacted nor prevention of future events. Just a throw away phrase, presumably so the person can feel good and yet it doesn't really cost them anything.
So is it really compassion if the person isn't taking action?
Just as people confuse feelings for love, which is also an action. I can say I feel love for my wife. But if I don't do things that demonstrate that love, celebrating her for who she is, getting her her favorite ice cream, or flowers, or making sure her car is full of gas, or stepping up to take some task off her plate when I see it's full, do I really love her?
Compassion, like love is a verb. It requires action. It's more than a feeling, it's an action taken for another.
I don't see voting for a large government apparatus to care for our neighbors to be any more compassionate than the man or woman who says they love their spouse, but never performs any actions to meet their most important emotional needs.
I understand you don't see it. What I'm pointing out is that a person's failure to see or notice something doesn't always mean that it doesn't exist.
I think you're assuming that someone who supports a social safety net and progressive taxes is limiting their action to just that. That's no more reasonable than someone assuming that you opposing a social safety net and progressive taxes is the sole extent of your compassion for those who are unable to work and need assistance.
You have pointed out that in addition to your policy position, you have taken action. Why is it not reasonable to assume that at least some of those who disagree with you have also taken actions in addition to their policy positions, as you have done?
I agree with you that a policy position, in and of itself, isn't always sufficient demonstration of compassion.
Voting for governmental support for those who require help isn't inherently compassionate (someone could cast such a vote out of, say, self-interest). But neither is voting against it. Both groups of people presumably contain those who have true compassion for others (and demonstrate it through their actions) and people who lack it.7 -
My point is being in favor of something doesn't constitute compassion. Just as being against it doesn't constitute being uncompassionate. Many, on both sides of the aisle, will suggest that the others are not compassionate based on the policies they support.
I tend to believe that that ACTION of taking from one person can never be an act of compassion. If you have to TAKE, you are not engaged in compassion towards the one from whom you take.
So while you may be compassionate towards the one you give, leaving out for the moment that you are not really giving of your time, talent or treasure, you have to perform an act that is the polar opposite of compassion to get the resource you are going to give to another. Therefore, the best possible outcome is a zero net compassion. If you have to take from one to give to another, and you are being uncompassionate towards those from whom you take, then you cannot have net compassion.
One might argue that such an act does little harm to those from whom the resource is taken. Do we really get to decide how much others should feel harmed when we take from them? Would we say the same to others where things are taken against their will? I.E. you've had enough time to get over the loss of your husband, or your wife cheating on you, or being kidnapped, or being ripped off at the car dealership, and so on.
Most who are knowledgeable indicate that others don't get to define how long people should greve or the depth of their pain, discomfort, or whatever you want to call it.
So how is it ok to now define that someone should be ok with others voting to take from them and giving to another?
It's certainly not compassion to take the fruits of another's labor. So social safety nets start from a compassion deficit as they must perform an action that is the opposite of compassion to get the funds to share with others.6 -
tbright1965 wrote: »My point is being in favor of something doesn't constitute compassion. Just as being against it doesn't constitute being uncompassionate. Many, on both sides of the aisle, will suggest that the others are not compassionate based on the policies they support.
I tend to believe that that ACTION of taking from one person can never be an act of compassion. If you have to TAKE, you are not engaged in compassion towards the one from whom you take.
So while you may be compassionate towards the one you give, leaving out for the moment that you are not really giving of your time, talent or treasure, you have to perform an act that is the polar opposite of compassion to get the resource you are going to give to another. Therefore, the best possible outcome is a zero net compassion. If you have to take from one to give to another, and you are being uncompassionate towards those from whom you take, then you cannot have net compassion.
One might argue that such an act does little harm to those from whom the resource is taken. Do we really get to decide how much others should feel harmed when we take from them? Would we say the same to others where things are taken against their will? I.E. you've had enough time to get over the loss of your husband, or your wife cheating on you, or being kidnapped, or being ripped off at the car dealership, and so on.
Most who are knowledgeable indicate that others don't get to define how long people should greve or the depth of their pain, discomfort, or whatever you want to call it.
So how is it ok to now define that someone should be ok with others voting to take from them and giving to another?
It's certainly not compassion to take the fruits of another's labor. So social safety nets start from a compassion deficit as they must perform an action that is the opposite of compassion to get the funds to share with others.
I agree. Compassion can be a factor in why people adopt certain policy positions, but legitimate compassion would be displayed in a whole array of actions.
I understand that you would like to limit compassion to the policy positions that align with yours. Where we differ is that I think legitimately compassionate people can take a variety of policy positions -- including some that would be difficult for me to reconcile with my personal expressions of compassion. Core values can manifest each other in different ways, that's my position.
I don't personally consider progressive taxation to be akin having your wife kidnapped or your husband dying, but I do understand that others feel that way. I would never tell someone whether or not they should feel harmed by a specific policy decision. Your feelings are your feelings and you're entitled to them.
What I would argue is that we don't have to let someone's *feelings* be the sole factor in determining governmental policy in an area. There are a variety of things we should look at, not just whether or not a particular person or group feels a feeling of loss or grief when they are taxed at a rate higher than they think is appropriate.
7 -
Snakes receive a lot less environmental protection than Pandas and baby seals. It’s easier to arouse compassion for the latter group.
I am an amateur historian. Reading census microfilm is like peeking in to the past. Without a social safety net ageing farmers were dependent on their adult children for any sort of ease in their old age. If they did not have enough sons, heaven forbid, they would have to hope for a domestic position in a larger household.
I can promise you that the wealthier farmers paid more than an average percentage of their societal debt.
I imagine in the libertarian utopia you envision this sort of help would come from direct action rather than an impersonal redistribution of wealth by the state.
In practice I believe, the less attractive and the less visible simply expired without much fanfare.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I understand that you would like to limit compassion to the policy positions that align with yours.
Apparently, you don't understand. I want no limits at all on compassion. Be as compassionate as you want. But don't call taking from one person compassion.
Taking isn't compassion.
I have no problem with compassion. My problem is that people believe that taking something from one person and giving to another is compassion. It you have to take it, how can it be compassion?
Defining compassion as taking from someone is 1984'esque. Less is more, taking is compassion, ignorance is bliss, and so on.
I have no problem with you being as compassionate as you see fit with YOUR time, with YOUR talents and with YOUR treasure. No need to limit such compassion.
But taking isn't compassion. So the limits I call for are limits on the uncompassionate actions.
5 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I understand that you would like to limit compassion to the policy positions that align with yours.
Apparently, you don't understand. I want no limits at all on compassion. Be as compassionate as you want. But don't call taking from one person compassion.
Taking isn't compassion.
I have no problem with compassion. My problem is that people believe that taking something from one person and giving to another is compassion. It you have to take it, how can it be compassion?
Defining compassion as taking from someone is 1984'esque. Less is more, taking is compassion, ignorance is bliss, and so on.
I have no problem with you being as compassionate as you see fit with YOUR time, with YOUR talents and with YOUR treasure. No need to limit such compassion.
But taking isn't compassion. So the limits I call for are limits on the uncompassionate actions.
Let me restate: It appears to me that you're *redefining* compassion so that it only exists in those who have policy positions that align with yours.
Do you think a compassionate person can favor a social safety net and a system of progressive taxation?
I am not asking you to agree that their compassion is *defined or limited* to this policy position or if this policy position is sufficient to identify someone as compassionate, I'm asking if you think a compassionate person can hold those positions. If the answer is "yes, they could be compassionate" then I've misunderstood what you've said in other comments and I apologize.
I'm not defining compassion as taking from someone. I'm stating that a person who has compassion can hold a variety of policy positions, including those that you profoundly disagree with (or that I profoundly disagree with).
There is, in my opinion, a certain value in trying to understand and get into the minds of others. When we determine that those we disagree with are lacking core values or engaging in 1984-style behavior, I think we lose a lot of potential for not only connecting with others, but improving our own understanding of the world (not that there can't be some individual bad actors on either side, there clearly are).7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I understand that you would like to limit compassion to the policy positions that align with yours.
Apparently, you don't understand. I want no limits at all on compassion. Be as compassionate as you want. But don't call taking from one person compassion.
Taking isn't compassion.
I have no problem with compassion. My problem is that people believe that taking something from one person and giving to another is compassion. It you have to take it, how can it be compassion?
Defining compassion as taking from someone is 1984'esque. Less is more, taking is compassion, ignorance is bliss, and so on.
I have no problem with you being as compassionate as you see fit with YOUR time, with YOUR talents and with YOUR treasure. No need to limit such compassion.
But taking isn't compassion. So the limits I call for are limits on the uncompassionate actions.
Let me restate: It appears to me that you're *redefining* compassion so that it only exists in those who have policy positions that align with yours.
I don't think I said in whom compassion exists. Or if I did, I certainly didn't mean to. I simply said TAKING from someone is the opposite of compassion.
Sure. You can favor those things. They are not compassionate, but it isn't illogical to suggest that compassionate people might favor policies that are not compassionate.janejellyroll wrote: »
Do you think a compassionate person can favor a social safety net and a system of progressive taxation?
It has never been my position that one cannot help another person. Helping someone is an act of compassion. It is my position that many propose engaging in actions that are the opposite of compassion in order to obtain the resources to help and that it may be a net loss in compassion.
I contend that those advocating taking from others either downplay or simply ignore the reality that taking from someone is not a compassionate act. Maybe they are ignorant. Maybe they believe they should be the arbiter of how much someone should have vs people having the freedom to personally decide such issues.
I don't claim to know the motivations. I simply don't see the taking side of the equation as compassion. If someone loses freedom in the name of another's notion of the greater good, the cost is too great. The loss of freedom is a loss that is no less grievous than the loss of a loved one, or innocence, etc.janejellyroll wrote: »
I am not asking you to agree that their compassion is *defined or limited* to this policy position or if this policy position is sufficient to identify someone as compassionate, I'm asking if you think a compassionate person can hold those positions. If the answer is "yes, they could be compassionate" then I've misunderstood what you've said in other comments and I apologize.
A compassionate person can hold all sorts of contradictory positions. They can be ignorant of the harm done by the loss of freedom or the imposition of values on others.janejellyroll wrote: »
I'm not defining compassion as taking from someone. I'm stating that a person who has compassion can hold a variety of policy positions, including those that you profoundly disagree with (or that I profoundly disagree with).
And I'm not defining compassion as taking from someone. I've said exactly the opposite, taking from another is an act that exactly the OPPOSITE of compassion. So at what cost does the compassionate social policy come?janejellyroll wrote: »
There is, in my opinion, a certain value in trying to understand and get into the minds of others. When we determine that those we disagree with are lacking core values or engaging in 1984-style behavior, I think we lose a lot of potential for not only connecting with others, but improving our own understanding of the world (not that there can't be some individual bad actors on either side, there clearly are).
5 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I understand that you would like to limit compassion to the policy positions that align with yours.
Apparently, you don't understand. I want no limits at all on compassion. Be as compassionate as you want. But don't call taking from one person compassion.
Taking isn't compassion.
I have no problem with compassion. My problem is that people believe that taking something from one person and giving to another is compassion. It you have to take it, how can it be compassion?
Defining compassion as taking from someone is 1984'esque. Less is more, taking is compassion, ignorance is bliss, and so on.
I have no problem with you being as compassionate as you see fit with YOUR time, with YOUR talents and with YOUR treasure. No need to limit such compassion.
But taking isn't compassion. So the limits I call for are limits on the uncompassionate actions.
Let me restate: It appears to me that you're *redefining* compassion so that it only exists in those who have policy positions that align with yours.
I don't think I said in whom compassion exists. Or if I did, I certainly didn't mean to. I simply said TAKING from someone is the opposite of compassion.
Sure. You can favor those things. They are not compassionate, but it isn't illogical to suggest that compassionate people might favor policies that are not compassionate.janejellyroll wrote: »
Do you think a compassionate person can favor a social safety net and a system of progressive taxation?
It has never been my position that one cannot help another person. Helping someone is an act of compassion. It is my position that many propose engaging in actions that are the opposite of compassion in order to obtain the resources to help and that it may be a net loss in compassion.
I contend that those advocating taking from others either downplay or simply ignore the reality that taking from someone is not a compassionate act. Maybe they are ignorant. Maybe they believe they should be the arbiter of how much someone should have vs people having the freedom to personally decide such issues.
I don't claim to know the motivations. I simply don't see the taking side of the equation as compassion. If someone loses freedom in the name of another's notion of the greater good, the cost is too great. The loss of freedom is a loss that is no less grievous than the loss of a loved one, or innocence, etc.janejellyroll wrote: »
I am not asking you to agree that their compassion is *defined or limited* to this policy position or if this policy position is sufficient to identify someone as compassionate, I'm asking if you think a compassionate person can hold those positions. If the answer is "yes, they could be compassionate" then I've misunderstood what you've said in other comments and I apologize.
A compassionate person can hold all sorts of contradictory positions. They can be ignorant of the harm done by the loss of freedom or the imposition of values on others.janejellyroll wrote: »
I'm not defining compassion as taking from someone. I'm stating that a person who has compassion can hold a variety of policy positions, including those that you profoundly disagree with (or that I profoundly disagree with).
And I'm not defining compassion as taking from someone. I've said exactly the opposite, taking from another is an act that exactly the OPPOSITE of compassion. So at what cost does the compassionate social policy come?janejellyroll wrote: »
There is, in my opinion, a certain value in trying to understand and get into the minds of others. When we determine that those we disagree with are lacking core values or engaging in 1984-style behavior, I think we lose a lot of potential for not only connecting with others, but improving our own understanding of the world (not that there can't be some individual bad actors on either side, there clearly are).
I never said you defined compassion as taking from someone. I was responding to you attributing that attempted redefinition to those you disagree with.
I understand your feelings, I think we just disagree as to whether those feelings of loss and grief that you attribute to some of those who participate in progressive taxation should mean that it is off the table as a policy option.
There is a cost to all of these policy decisions. There is no cost-free option when it comes to this issue. A flat tax rate has an impact on people, a progressive tax rate has impact on people. A social safety net has an impact on people, eliminating the safety net has an impact on people. We don't have the option of just looking at the costs on one side and making our decision that way (well, I mean, we have that option, but I wouldn't recommend it). So it comes down to -- what costs does one consider most acceptable? This is a question that I think people of goodwill can disagree on.
If you're attributing ignorance or holding inherently contradictory positions to all who disagree with you, I'm wondering what you're getting or hoping to get from these conversations.
5 -
Maybe it's time to move along? I'm all for debating, but is this going anywhere?2
-
Maybe it's time to move along? I'm all for debating, but is this going anywhere?
I apologize for drawing this conversation out beyond what you would prefer. I like to try to reach understanding with people who hold different opinions, but there are times when I take it too far. I'll refrain from future posts in this thread.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I never said you defined compassion as taking from someone. I was responding to you attributing that attempted redefinition to those you disagree with.
I understand your feelings, I think we just disagree as to whether those feelings of loss and grief that you attribute to some of those who participate in progressive taxation should mean that it is off the table as a policy option.
Why not? After all, I believe you cited the costs paid by those you believe would be negatively impacted by others paying the same tax rates they already pay.
That is the inherent problem with others determining values for people. They tend to weigh the costs others bear as lower or less important than the costs they would bear.janejellyroll wrote: »
There is a cost to all of these policy decisions. There is no cost-free option when it comes to this issue. A flat tax rate has an impact on people, a progressive tax rate has impact on people. A social safety net has an impact on people, eliminating the safety net has an impact on people. We don't have the option of just looking at the costs on one side and making our decision that way (well, I mean, we have that option, but I wouldn't recommend it). So it comes down to -- what costs does one consider most acceptable? This is a question that I think people of goodwill can disagree on.
That individuals determine the costs they are willing to bear. Bringing it in line with the topic, why stop with my body, my choice. Why not my wallet, my choice, or my desires, my choice?
Again, I suspect it's because people value their freedoms, but discount the freedoms of others.janejellyroll wrote: »
If you're attributing ignorance or holding inherently contradictory positions to all who disagree with you, I'm wondering what you're getting or hoping to get from these conversations.
I would hope that people would see that because we all hold contradictory views. Or at least I've not yet met the person who has everything logically sorted so there are no contradictions. Anyway, my point is, because of the various views and the inevitable costs, the decisions to pay those costs should rest solely on those who would pay them. I.E. you are free to decide what you will pay and let others decide what they will pay. Each acting in accordance with their values. None forced to violate their principles.
There are two aspects of that. First, people must have the freedom to decide. Second, people must be free from being forced to support the values of others.
If you believe someone should have free health care, I'm not against you using YOUR time, talent and treasure to make that happen. Your values, you can support them with your funds as you see fit. Not an inconsistent position. If that guy over there wants to use steroids, why shouldn't he be free to use them? Some have cited the public responsibility for his care should something go wrong. My question is simply, why is there the presumption of a public responsibility in the first place? I don't think anyone should be made responsible for his care simply because they live in some geographic proximity to that person under some shared form of representative government.
Now if someone wishes to voluntarily be responsible, I have no problem with that. But I also have no problem with those who DON'T wish to be responsible.
Do what you want. Hold the views you want. But give others the same freedom. Don't simply vote on what should be the collective group-think or group-compassion and expect that others just say, 'OK.'
As long as I'm not harming you, what is wrong with me living my dream, me doing me, and you do you? Why do some feel they need to use government to force others to fall in line with their vision of the greater good? I see it on both the left and the right, so don't get me wrong, I'm just as much against those whose vision of the greater good was traditional marriage only is for the greater good as I am against those who thinks our government, and therefore we the people, have responsibility as spelled out by FDR and LBJ for the greater good, as defined by them.6 -
tbright1965 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
Actually I do. I grew up in a single parent home. I worked in the school cafeteria rather than take a free or reduced price lunch. I doubt schools do that today. I went to college on an ROTC scholarship because I knew my mom couldn't afford to send me.
I made arrangements for trading my skills or labor for meals and education because even in grade school, I understood our family's finances. So I do understand and have lived that life.
Then I'm not sure how else to explain that for people who are already living a very carefully balanced life could be placed at greater risk through a single rate tax system. You do realize that to maintain the current taxes collected, a single tax percentage would have to be higher than what the lower income brackets are currently paying. What do you propose is the solution for coming up with the difference?
Spend less.
Do you really think we need to spend as much as the next 10 nations combined on defense? That's about 25% of the $4T the federal government spends each year. I'm sure there are some cuts to be made in that hairball of spending.
Paying interest on our debt is 6% of Federal spending. We never pay any principle, just paying debt. If we were to stop deficit spending and start actually paying off some of that principle, we could free up more money for actually providing services to taxpayers instead of spending 1 of every 16 dollars collected paying interest to someone.
Nearly 2/3rds of all spending is some sort of transfer payment. Twice as big as the DOD, there is probably some waste, fraud and abuse there. Start ramping it down. If states want to have these programs, let them have them. If people want out of Social Security, let them out. Something like you no long have to pay the 6.2% FICA taxes and we'll start crediting one or more years indexed contributions to SS for each tax year to your income taxes so you can invest the money yourself.
The fewer beneficiaries there are, the less unfunded liabilities Uncle Sam has. And the money isn't taken out all at once, as those who opt out must take annual credits calculated based on their age and prior payments in FICA taxes.
Anything that can be done by states is paid for by states. No need for federal funds to build roads, bridges, stop lights, schools. My state already self funds schooling at 93% Only about 7% of all education funds come from DC, so it's not a big hit. Much of the reason for that funding is federal mandates. Remove the mandates and much if not all the costs go away and it's a wash. Is it really proper for a rancher in Montana to fund a light rail project in Seattle with federal taxes?
Or vice versa, people in Seattle funding a stoplight in Montana? If the community wants a stoplight, open your pocketbooks and fund it. Don't expect your congress critter in DC to go get the money.
Besides, income taxes are only a small portion of the taxes collected. Many who pay at the lowest marginal rates, if they pay at all, pay far more in FICA taxes. So it's not like DC is going to go broke if income tax rates are equalized.
DC will just need to be more selective about what it does.
State and local governments have the freedom to do as they wish. So it's not like all taxes are going away.
What about the states that are poorer? How will they be funding the infrastructure that is needed?
I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the picture as you see it. I am certain that you and I will never agree, but hearing different opinions is interesting to me.
For the record, I am Canadian, our taxes are fairly high, less is spent on military initiatives, and plenty of it is wasted on health care abuses. But just because people will abuse the system, doesn't mean I think the whole thing should be scrapped. Should there be reform: yes. What that should/would that look like, I'm uncertain. But I hate the idea that people need to make a choice between healthcare, keeping a roof over their heads, and possible bankruptcy.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Maybe it's time to move along? I'm all for debating, but is this going anywhere?
I apologize for drawing this conversation out beyond what you would prefer. I like to try to reach understanding with people who hold different opinions, but there are times when I take it too far. I'll refrain from future posts in this thread.
No, you're fine if you want to continue the conversation. This is the debate forum, so no better place than here for this conversing.. I'm just not sure you're getting anywhere.0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »What about the states that are poorer? How will they be funding the infrastructure that is needed?
I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the picture as you see it. I am certain that you and I will never agree, but hearing different opinions is interesting to me.
For the record, I am Canadian, our taxes are fairly high, less is spent on military initiatives, and plenty of it is wasted on health care abuses. But just because people will abuse the system, doesn't mean I think the whole thing should be scrapped. Should there be reform: yes. What that should/would that look like, I'm uncertain. But I hate the idea that people need to make a choice between healthcare, keeping a roof over their heads, and possible bankruptcy.
As indicated before, most infrastructure spending is local anyway. How much does the federal government really spend vs the state contribution?
However, many of the states who are listed as the poorest are also politically more inclined to wanting less federal government.
So why not give them what they say they want?6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 930 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions