Score one for Fairweather

[ZimZam]

Six percent is that really all that significant. Not much to quibble over. Then again conservatives saw dingbats re-election as a MANDATE.

[Mr_Phil]

"BROOKS: For me, it was a surprising truth. And the reason for that is I was under the stereotype about charitible giving in America, which is that those who are most charitiable are the people who say that they care the most about the needy in America—and that typically involves the political left. And what I found when I started doing analysis on this some years ago was that actually the opposite is true: that political conservatives, or at least declared political conservatives, give more of their resources, even proportionate to their incomes, than liberals do."

 

To me this makes sense. The traditional conservative view is self-reliance and that the individual is responsible for funding and delivering charity. The traditional liberal view is that the government should be responsible. Conservatives spend their own money and liberals are trying to spend OPM (Other People's Money).

 

This also suggests that conservative charity will be more effective, as less time and effort is spent raising money and more time identifying problems and providing soulutions. Liberal charity is about lobbying Congress.

[Mr_Phil]

The author seems to imply that governmental policies, as opposed to traditional charities, do not have individual costs. Of course, debt forgiveness, living wages, and social "safety nets" are government policies rather than individual acts of charity. The financial burdens of those policies, however, are transferred to individuals via taxes. If you support such policies, you are also accepting the concominant individual financial burden associated with them.

 

I understand that the financial burdens of such policies are distributed to both the individuals who support and oppose them. However, isn't it a ((charity))if I'm willing to accept a greater tax burden to facilitate a policy I believe is socially beneficial, such as debt forgivenss or subsidized food for low income mothers?

 

But gov't policy forces *all* taxpayers to pay. By lobbying for policy, you are not only contributing, but forcing those who disagree to contribute as well.

[tvashtarkatena]

Both seem rather moderate to me, but I can see why both sides would want to claim them as their own.

 

Buffet perhaps, but I can assure you from first hand knowledge that Gates (and Allen, for that matter) are very socially liberal.

[counterfeitfake]

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. I'm sure if they could choose how all their tax money marked for charity was distributed, they would, rather than let the government do it. They're businessmen.

[tvashtarkatena]

I don't understand any of your points.

 

This is my problem?

 

Has anyone mentioned yet that a 6% difference is probably well within the error band of determining whether a person was 'liberal' or 'conservative', which are two overly broad categorizations in themselves?

 

No, it's really simple, he asked them to self-identify. The data in the first paragraph is based on what categorization the people in the study considered themselves to fit.

 

To simpletons, everything is simple. Neither JayB or the good doctor included a margin of error. In addition, 'self identification' can be fantastically error prone (we all know how incredibly accurate polls are), based on how the questions are asked and how respondees are contacted or gathered in the first place. For one thing, how do we know that the 'liberal' respondees were chosen just as randomly as the 'conservative'. How would one go about ensuring equal randomness in these to groups?

 

 

The much more relevant question is this: how much do each of us, right here on this forum, give back?

 

Why is that more relevant? There are lots of confounding variables built into the group that's reading this website. How is this going to be more relevant?

 

If you're saying it's more relevant because we kind of know each other, then I could agree with that.

 

Nearly all of the statements on this particarly forum are nothing but drivel. San Franciscans are more 'selfish' because they live in San Francisco? Does that poster even KNOW anyone in San Francisco? Give me a fucking break.

 

Instead of pointing fingers at people we've yet to meet and groups about which we have no knowledge, which to me is completely irrelevant, why not have the finger pointers put their money where their mouths are? That, to me, is the central point of this kind of discussion.

 

No doctored studies or manufactured statistics required.

 

It is pretty easy, and pretty weak, to just suggest this is doctored without showing any evidence whatsoever. It seems like you're just saying it beacuse you don't like the results.

 

It may 'seem' like it, but I don't give a damn about the results. When I smell a bullshit study, however, I'm going to comment. What matters to me regarding charity is what I'm doing or not doing, not what someone I've never met is doing.

[tvashtarkatena]

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

 

Hmmmm, how would they categorize themselves in Dr. Brooks' study? Liberal, or Conservative? Would half go one way and half the other?

 

Methinks you've exposed a chink in your own argument...

[counterfeitfake]

To simpletons, everything is simple.

 

Ad hominem! NICE!

 

You're missing the point. The study said "people who consider themselves liberal do this, people who consider themselves conservative do this". It's not saying "liberals and conservatives do these things" because that would mean the study was deciding who is liberal and conservative. The study doesn't have a method for this, it's just pointing out a correlation between people's view of themselves and their actions.

 

Nearly all of the statements on this particarly forum are nothing but drivel.

 

Red herring! NICE! We aren't talking about someone else's other posts and we aren't talking about San Francisco.

 

It may 'seem' like it, but I don't give a damn about the results. When I smell a bullshit study, however, I'm going to comment. What matters to me regarding charity is what I'm doing or not doing, not what someone I've never met is doing.

 

Okay! So you don't care about the study. The only thing that is important to you is what YOU are or aren't doing.

 

Why are you talking then? Do you care about any studies? Do you care about the studies that back up the opinions you already hold?

 

Hmmmm, how would they categorize themselves in Dr. Brooks' study?

 

It would be interesting to find out. I don't know how to find out.

 

Methinks you've exposed a chink in your own argument...

 

How? To be clear, here is my argument.

 

1. You are not making an argument, you are just spraying.

 

2. The results of the study are not surprising, they are consistent with the respective views of liberals and conservatives. Liberals tend to believe the government should take care of social causes and conservatives believe it is better to be handled by individuals.

 

oh, I'll make a third

 

3. Use of the word "methinks" is totally lame.

 

nevermind that was just spray.

 

 

This guy has a body of research, he did a study and wrote a book. That gives him some level of credibility. If you wanted to read his book the methods used in the study are probably spelled out and you could argue with him. If you wanted to say he is biased you could read about him and argue that. This would take effort. You aren't doing this, you just didn't like what you heard and you're putting out broadband noise.

 

That is why you are spraying and not arguing. Arguing requires work. Spray doesn't.

[Mr_Phil]

That is why you are spraying and not arguing. Arguing requires work. Spray doesn't.

 

Bullshit.

 

If I wasn't at work, then I wouldn't be spraying on cc.com.

 

Therefore spray requires work.

 

QED.

 

[counterfeitfake]

Now THAT'S a well-put-together argument.

[underworld]

San Franciscans are more 'selfish' because they live in San Francisco? Does that poster even KNOW anyone in San Francisco? Give me a fucking break.

 

ah yes, now to the victim card. these poor guys that live in san fran - have to put all their money in a million dollar home instead of helping those that don't have a home. if only they weren't born there, or have the kush jobs, or whatever the reason...then they'd be able to give to charity.

 

removing people rational decisions

[Ratboy]

We've got plenty of million dollar homes right here in the Seattle area. So the people living in them are all selfish too then?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Yeah, fuck art and all that shit. Fuck literature. We're here to shop, dump, drink, and hump.

 

That's what YOU'RE here for. And then you die, right Mr. Atheist?

 

And as usual YOU miss the point. If you will summarily dismiss the charitable contributions of "conservatives" because they often go to Churches and religious charities, then, in all fairness, one must look into the charities to which "liberals" donate their money. Let's do a full and complete analysis of exactly where these monies go.

 

Of course there is an implicit implication in this argument from you naysayers of this report that "liberals" don't donate to Churches or religious charities, which is bullshit too. Of course they do. But the secular atheists on this list only reveal their own anti-religious lifestyle and biases in pointing out the "religion-based" charitable contributions of "Conservatives".

 

 

 

[enelson]

not to get in the middle of a beautiful display of indentifying fallacious arguments and spray, but i wanted to comment too! i think it might be interesting to note that political identity has very little to do with the charitable giving we are tlaking about. it seems to be more today to be about the war, or environmental issues, or abortion. taxes too, but that has always been the same debate. within any broadly defined group, especially "conservatives vs. liberals" there will be great variety within each group. and the weak link between classifying your political identity by how cheritable you are seems to make this study a little pointless to me.

 

so you might respond: "the point of the study is to show a link in those broadly defined groups with how cheritable they are and how cheritable they say they are"

 

that is fine, but what about public schools or roads or police etc. they aren't funded by private giving, they are funded by the government, yet they provide a cheritable service to society. i can't tell that these types of things were included in the study, so i would want to say simply that liberals arent' anyless cheritable than conservatives, they just do it in a different way, through the government. is that really so bad?

 

i mean when i comes down to it this study is providing a way to attack the moral credibility of a particular group of people. that to me is unnecessary and totally counterproductive. liberals are doing good things when they vote to fund schools and medicare and stuff like that. conservatives are doing good things when they donate to whatever privately. but the link between classifying yourself in one political group or another and how much you care about giving seems a little loose in a world where politics means more about invading countries and preventing dudes from getting married.

[enelson]

Yes, there is something to that, but there's also something to many liberals living in high cost of living areas and therefore having less disposable income. San Francisco, Washington, New York, none of these are cheap - especially compared to conservative heartlands like Texas.

 

All in all, as reported, this looks to be one of those studies where the author found what he wanted to find.

 

And you refute facts that are, um, "inconvenient" to your world view.

 

Speaking of categorization of charity, let's exclude contributions to art museums, ballets, symphonies, and the like - all favorite places for rich liberals to dump their cash.

 

oh yeah, you are a tool for saying this. those things are hardly supported by "rich liberals" and not by "rich conservatives." even if you were right, you would be implying that conservatives don't care about the "arts" which imho would make them stupid backwater bumpkins. "pass the moonshine billy bob, i'm about to learn to play the washboard!"

[cj001f]

This also suggests that conservative charity will be more effective, as less time and effort is spent raising money and more time identifying problems and providing soulutions. Liberal charity is about lobbying Congress.

 

Mr Delay and Mr. Hastert to the podium please.

 

Churches reserve their gifts for members; the arts allow anyone who views them to partake in their gift. In that I see a fundamental difference KK.

[cj001f]

this falls in line with saying liberals are self-centered. they would rather put their, would-be, disposable income towards living in a ritzy area than live a more humble means and put that money towards helping others.

 

the free market has incentivized them to move there.

 

This study also neglects socially beneficial underemployment - teachers, social workers,etc.

 

 

[rbw1966]

I didn't read the initial post or study but did they define what "charities" are? If its broadly defined to be any not-for-profit entity then that opens it up to political contributions as well. Hardly charitable endeavors.

 

[StevenSeagal]

"Do you do this everyday...?"

 

"Everyday!"

 

[enelson]

that looks like the coke piled up around tony montana's pool

[underworld]

We've got plenty of million dollar homes right here in the Seattle area. So the people living in them are all selfish too then?

 

my point is that the excuse used earlier that liberals can't afford to be charitable because they live in expensive areas - is a TOTALLY selfish excuse.

 

certainly there are plenty of wealthy people that AREN'T at all selfish. (meaning they don't make excuses)

[tvashtarkatena]

2. Liberals tend to believe the government should take care of social causes and conservatives believe it is better to be handled by individuals.

 

 

This guy has a body of research, he did a study and wrote a book. That gives him some level of credibility. That is why you are spraying and not arguing. Arguing requires work. Spray doesn't.

 

So, let me get this straight. When you say I'm just spraying and not arguing, are you arguing or just spraying?

 

Writing a book in itself affords an author not one ounce of credibility. There are millions of books filled with absolute garbage, from Mein Kamf to Ancient Astronauts to entire authoritative tomes on the Rapture.

 

I've pointed out some possible flaws in this study. I'll point out another...how did the interviewer determine how much money each interviewee gave? Take their word for it? Tax returns (many contributions are not tax deductible and so wouldn't show up).

 

As for you succinct, pat, and outdated definition of liberal as government dependent (I'm thinking that many liberals are not very enamored with the feds at this point) and conservative as responsible self starter, spare me even more drivel. No one has loved big government more than the conservative party of Reagan, and everyone on this forum knows it.

 

Do you want to know what I think of the study? I'd wager that 6% is well within the error margin, given all the the potential flaws and innaccuracies I've argued, oh sorry, sprayed. The conclusion, therefore? What you'd expect from a large cross-sectional population: Self described liberals and conservatives probably give about the same amount the charity.

[JayB]

Unless you are a member of a church that requires you to give, then I don't think that religious giving should be completely discounted here. The key element here involves making a choice to give away your money.

 

 

[underworld]

Churches reserve their gifts for members

 

total BS!

 

ever go to church? ever give money to the church? know anything about the church?

 

(for the above argument's purposes, the chuch should be defined as NOT the tv evangalist psychos)

[tvashtarkatena]

We've got plenty of million dollar homes right here in the Seattle area. So the people living in them are all selfish too then?

 

my point is that the excuse used earlier that liberals can't afford to be charitable because they live in expensive areas - is a TOTALLY selfish excuse.

 

Where the hell did you come up with this conclusion? Some sprayer just dropped it like a soft turd onto this forum and now it's hard fact?

 

Have you been practicing your Anime Shun?