Where will inflation stop?

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

So we are going there again? You slink off with your tail between your legs, only to return again with more politics, and add in a good dose of religion while you are at it? As I've said, I'd welcome a political debate on any topic, but this is not the place. 
 

Liberals tend to answer, "Yes, you are. WE are." That is, we are responsible for the welfare of our brothers and sisters, of helping those who have fallen to get up, and to try to keep them from falling in the first place. For brothers and sisters read, fellow members of the human race.
: : The conservative answer is, "Hell, no! Why should I waste time and money on my fellow citizens not directly related to me. Let all those other poor bastards accept individual responsibility. If they can't do that, screw 'em!" SS

This is idiotic. Not just because it's political, but because it's inaccurate from start to finish. Pure fantasy. Keep thinking that you are good and noble because you invent problems that don't exist, expect other people to do all of the work to "solve" them, and then you expect credit. I also believe that you have cherry picked your religious examples. How do you know when someone is down if they have fallen, or if they are just taking a nap? While the Christian faith does encourage helping those who can't help themselves, it expects able minded and bodied to care for themselves and their community. You were expected to put in work and share your fortune. Long before the government deemed itself responsible for the welfare of the people, that duty was tended to by the church.  

So if you believe in the Christian Religion, yes, you have to provide affordable insulin to your brother so he will not die. If you are an atheist or a satanist or you worship Thor or some other Marvel Hero you have no obligations to help your brother or anybody else and I will see you in Hell if such a place exists.

Definitions are important. What is "affordable?" At what point is a good Christian expected to step in? If a person has to choose between insulin or Netflix, are we required to provide them insulin so they can keep their Netflix? What if the person just can't be bothered to explore the countless programs available that make insulin more affordable? Do we do it for them? Just pay for the expensive stuff? This is all academic anyway, pending Frenchy's report. He's the one that said that insulin was so expensive that people are dying in the streets, hopefully he's gathering facts to back up that allegation. Maybe you could help him out since you seem to share that belief. I've heard it so often, it shouldn't take long to back that up.
 

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

You are conflating two things. What religious people believe they themselves should be doing, and what religious people believe others should be compelled to do (in a legal  or moral situation), specifically on the topic of responsibility.

There are plenty of standards i hold myself to that I dont hold others to, its because it should be a free country and you should be able to live as your beliefs dictate. I hope people are good, but they are legally entitled to not be.

Also you had a mischaracterization in your post. Ive seen plenty of studies that Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats. If you look take a higher view and look at it by county. Reps leaning counties donate more, and Dem leaning counties donate less, but have higher taxes to try and solve the same problem. So you could make an argument that Dems are the ones that want to make others responsible for their world view (not my mone, other peoples money), while Reps are more likely to take it upon themselves to help and not force others to (my money, not other peoples money). Im refering to this specific issue, both parties love to compel others to do thing in plenty of situations.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

If you are an atheist or a satanist or you worship Thor or some other Marvel Hero you have no obligations to help your brother or anybody else and I will see you in Hell if such a place exists.

For the record, these are the precepts of the Satanic Temple:

THERE ARE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL TENETS

I

One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.

II

The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

III

One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

IV

The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.

V

Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.

VI

People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.

VII

Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

If people think Satanists are going to hell for that, well, that's their choice.  But if so, I want even less to do with that brand of religion than I already do.

Just when you thought this thread couldn't get any better...

Peabody said:

Just when you thought this thread couldn't get any better...

Right, this took an amazing turn. I don't think we have enough popcorn in the house. 

Funny. 

30% more

Yep...

Chronicle of Philanthropy noted that the states that rank highest in charitable giving all voted Republican in the 2012 Presidential election, while all but a couple of the least generous states voted for the Democrat (that’s what the color coding to the left reflects). Economist Arthur Brooks, author of the detailed charity analysis Who Really Cares, likewise states that “the electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar.”

From the NY Times no less!! 

The more Republican a county is, the more its residents report charitable contributions, the study found. The researchers said this finding fell within the broad political tendencies of traditional Republicans who favor less government intervention and more donations from the private sector to make up for the lack of government assistance.

tester (Forum Supporter) said:

Funny. 

30% more

Yep...

Chronicle of Philanthropy noted that the states that rank highest in charitable giving all voted Republican in the 2012 Presidential election, while all but a couple of the least generous states voted for the Democrat (that’s what the color coding to the left reflects). Economist Arthur Brooks, author of the detailed charity analysis Who Really Cares, likewise states that “the electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar.”

From the NY Times no less!! 

The more Republican a county is, the more its residents report charitable contributions, the study found. The researchers said this finding fell within the broad political tendencies of traditional Republicans who favor less government intervention and more donations from the private sector to make up for the lack of government assistance.

I don't remember mentioning the term Republican in my post. The quote I included from a religious site said liberal and conservative. I don't think Republicans have been all that conservative for many years. 

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

My bad I should have just assumed you meant Democrat when you said conservative and Republican when you said liberal. Makes sense.

Its called the overton window, and it shifts. In the United States if you say conservative its reasonable to assume you are referring to Republicans and if you say liberal the same applies to Democrat. If you are in a different country the term conservative or liberal can have a wildly different connotation. If you want to talk about how the parties dont meet the traditional definitions of liberal/conservative, thats a different argument, but you didnt include it in your post.

Or it was what you meant and your just trying to deflect because your assumptions are wrong.

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Here is one without the terms you didnt say and with the ones you did

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X21000752

Our meta-analysis results suggest that political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals at an overall level, but the relationship between political ideology and charitable giving varies under different scenarios

It should come as no surprise that you are still wrong even if we change it to "conservative and liberal" 

Opti said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Here is one without the terms you didnt say and with the ones you did

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X21000752

Our meta-analysis results suggest that political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals at an overall level, but the relationship between political ideology and charitable giving varies under different scenarios

It should come as no surprise that you are still wrong even if we change it to "conservative and liberal" 

Varies under different scenarios?

Of course a charity could be anything from restoring historical houses to doing research for the good on humanity at a university you want to get your kids into. And donating to a charity is tax deductible as well. You could donate to many charities and still have hatred for your fellow man. Especially under different scenarios.

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Its a meta-analysis so its look at a bunch of studies and tries to make sense. Heres a takeaway for you

 Our meta-analysis of 31 original studies reporting 421 effect sizes demonstrates a small, positive, yet statistically significant relationship between the two variables. That is, political conservatives are more charitable than political liberals at the overall level

 Interesting that the group you think wont spend their time or money to help people are, and I quote, "more charitable than political liberals at the overall level." Based on what you said it should be a surprise that they are even in the same league, let alone more charitable.

Keep grasping at straws, all of those same arguments could be applied to the other side, interesting that you only apply it to the side you dont like. Your bias is showing.

I was trying to explain in a religious context how making sure that people don't die because they can't afford insulin would be a good way of being your brother's keeper. I am sure there are people out there who vote Republican who donate money to churches who help buy insulin for the poor. I actually know a few. There is also the traditional Ayn Rand argument that people who don't work hard don't deserve good health care. Ayn Rand is an atheist, by the way. Not a Christian, but her beliefs are conservative and in line with what that quote is saying. 

When I was younger I was a big fan of Ayn Rand. I read all the books. Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead. The Objectivist Philosophy. Then I had more life experience and saw how life was not that simple and my views changed. I was once an agnostic and then things happened that changed my view. I am no longer single. Mrs Snowdoggie drug me to her church and I asked questions there. I learned to meditate and studied Eastern Religions. My beliefs are still evolving.

You seem more interesting in proving me "wrong", on tripping me up on one fact of another. You like to play that game with Frenchie too. Whatever. I am more interested in what is true in a philosophical perspective. I mentioned Hell if there is such a place. I am not sure there is. If there is, not helping others and not going by the rules of the bible is a good way to get there.

Or maybe it is all bullE36 M3. Nobody really knows for sure. I guess that's what faith is all about.

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

No Im interested in debate. I get frustrated when people have a hateful factually wrong basis for their ideas. 

"true in a philosophical perspective" seems like a fancy way to say I want to excuse my beliefs based on factually incorrect information.

If you're beliefs were still evolving and you were actually open to evolving them you wouldnt have a problem saying I didnt realize that or sorry I was wrong.

Opti said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

No Im interested in debate. I get frustrated when people have a hateful factually wrong basis for their ideas. 

"true in a philosophical perspective" seems like a fancy way to say I want to excuse my beliefs based on factually incorrect information.

If you're beliefs were still evolving and you were actually open to evolving them you wouldnt have a problem saying I didnt realize that or sorry I was wrong.

What factually incorrect information? That you should help others? That Jesus said you are your borother's keeper? That raising the price of insulin kills people?

I think you might be getting me confused with somebody else on this board. It doesn't matter. Winning stupid arguments on the internet is a game and getting frustrated just raises your blood pressure. 

And you guys want to argue endlessly. That's why you come to this thread. Getting angry and making personal attacks is not a good way of convincing somebody that you are right. 

If hell really does exist, maybe it consists of arguing on this thread forever and ever and ever, throughout eternity.

We could actually all be in hell.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter): What factually incorrect information?

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

 The conservative answer is, "Hell, no! Why should I waste time and money on my fellow citizens not directly related to me. Let all those other poor bastards accept individual responsibility. If they can't do that, screw 'em

In reply to Opti :

Those aren't my words. That is a part of a quote I took from a religious website. That does seem accurate though. I have heard those words before or similar ones many times from people who claim to be conservative. I have heard things like this on this very forum.

I could probably find words like it in many conservative publications and I could quote them for you here. I own books by conservatives that say the same thing. But it's midnight and I am too tired.

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Taxation is not giving or generosity.  It's just not the same thing. 

We answered the question on the first or seCond page. Inflation can't stop because of the way the money supply system works. Period, end of discussion. 

This isn't even fun to watch anymore. 

RevRico said:

We answered the question on the first or seCond page. Inflation can't stop because of the way the money supply system works. Period, end of discussion. 

This isn't even fun to watch anymore. 

That is because of the level of hostility here. And because there is a  gang attack on anybody who doesn't agree  on every little issue that is brought up, even though they may agree on other issues.

More personal attacks than debate. A beat down if you don't agree with the majority.

Oh. and at least one of you is a great admirer of satanists.

Not at all surprising. 

I guess this thread is cheap entertainment for those who can't find a reality show on TV. 

Bring more popcorn.

tester (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Taxation is not giving or generosity.  It's just not the same thing. 

I thought this thread was about how problems with the supply chain affect inflation, not taxation. At least that's how it started.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Oh. and at least one of you is a great admirer of satanists.

Not at all surprising.

What, exactly, in the Satanic Temple's 7 Tenets I quoted is out of step with the teachings of Christ?

They don't really opt into the whole mystical part, true.  But I can't see anything in that list that Christ would disapprove of.  The church, maybe.  But not Christ.

Or is it easier to just dismiss them based on the word "Satan" and their choice of typeface?

Not at all surprising.

Umm. Hail Satan?

And they are arguing in the Cletus McFarland thread about likes and who is getting butthurt. More hostility in a thread I'm not even posting in. Wow.

I see a lot of hostility in this place in general. Could it be the Satanists are winning? Maybe it's time to back out of here.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Umm. Hail Satan?

and where in their 7 tenets does it say that again? Oh wait.... reaching for straws again. I'm glad you're so evolved and open minded. 

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

I see a lot of hostility in this place in general. Could it be the Satanists are winning. Maybe it's time to back out of here.