Contest of Losers

[heavens_steed]

I'm just wondering if there is anyone out there who is a bigger loser than I am and can usurp my self-designated title of dishonor. Granted, it's not a contest anyone would want to win but out of everyone I know, I think I'm the biggest loser. And no, I don't mean losing great amounts of weight from exercising and dieting because that would be a

Comments

[corelog]

-People who are the victims of forces primarily or entirely outside of their control

This, in my mind, describes you. Therefore, by your own definition, I cannot classify you as a loser.

[footpad]

As with corelog's statement, I can interpret that as meaning one of three things:

(a) It's a caricature. I like it.

(b) You mis-spoke. The statement wasn't actually considered all that thoroughly and I'm taking it more seriously than it was meant. Fair enough. *wag*

(Deep breath. *wag*)

(c) It's a portrayal of fringe nutcases, not people who are politically relevant; a red herring. In the interests of constructive political debate, please recalibrate your view of the political spectrum to represent what people are actually proposing.

(d) You have lost your basic recognition of left-wingers as people with a moral framework akin, if somewhat differently slanted in one respect, to your own. Your most urgent political exercise should be to reestablish that fundamental empathy. Without it, you cannot contribute constructively to the political debate.

Er. That was three, right? All this left-wing thinking has done such terrible things to my ability to count

[heavens_steed]

I don't think it's any of those. Maybe you could call it a caricature. I would prefer the term "hyperbole." It's a statement representing an extreme or exaggerated version of the truth. It's partially jest and partially serious

[footpad]

Okay. *wag* I can go along with that.

I do totally agree that, as a left-winger in a left-wing country, there are many charitable causes that I feel no obligation to support. Here in Germany, it's been deemed to follow directly from the Constitution, that the state must ensure that every human has the elements of subsistence, shelter and medical care. Give to a hospital trust? Why bother?

I do have a set of charities that I support by subscription, but it's notable that none of them look to the needs of underprivileged people in my own country.

[heavens_steed]

I've never heard of a charity that doesn't look to the needs of the underprivileged. That's what charities generally do. Is Europe that screwed up and so dependent on government that proper charity doesn't exist anymore there?

[footpad]

Whew, talk about a leading question!

I'll answer it tit-for-tat: is America so screwed up that its entire charitable effort has to go to supporting the basic needs of humans?

My supported charities include: an environmental group, a political citizens-rights lobby, a global human-rights organisation (although I'm reconsidering that one), the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the wonderfully prosaic Humane Slaughter Association, and a group supporting the conservation and research of wolves.

[heavens_steed]

I would recommend you investigate the history of charity, including where the word itself originates from. The very concept of charity has always been about helping the downtrodden in society. Political lobbying or activists groups are NOT charities. That's an abuse of the label. That's not to say that some of those organizations aren't worth supporting, but I would not consider them charities under the proper definition of the word. Just saying.

[footpad]

Ahhuh. I was using the term for organisations officially designated as 'registered charities' under UK law. English people are used to describing a wide variety of such benevolent organisations as "charities", even though they don't fit the pure definition. So, again we trip over a matter of semantics. Let's drop that thread.