The differences between liberals and conservatives

[Some Guy Here]

Now I know I haven't been all that active lately - between college graduation, trying to get a job and this bout of sickness I've been dealing with, well, things have been going at a slow pace. And yes, I know SGH's Comics Profiles is all but defunct, but I assure you another one will come...eventually. Hopefully sooner than later.

Anyway, while I'm hopped up on meds, I figure I might as well rant about some observations I've made between myself and my brother, who has recently returned from college for the semester.

Now, both my brother and I were raised as conservatives. I, however, have found myself drifting more towards the left at least on certain issues, at least moreso than what would please my dad. Whether or not that makes me "moderate" is not something I'm particularly concerned about. My brother on the other hand has stayed predominantely conservative because, well, he's an asshole. And after observing him and some prominent conservatives with face time in the media, well, here are some of my observations concerning the so-called "victim mentality."

Now, granted, there is such a thing as a "victim mentality," where someone assigns him or herself to be a "victim" in order to benefit from the chairty of others. But one thing I've noticed between the two different ideaologies is who does the assigning. For example, with my recent cold I've asked my brother to leave me alone, or in the case of a new yet malfunctioning LCD TV "gifted" to us by a friend, I've asked him for instructions how to remedy the gravely malfunctioning screen (to the point where it's almost impossible to see anything, greatly defeating the purpose of the expensive appliance). Just a simple question. His response: he lectures me about the "victim mentality" and how I simply must "deal with it," which is a response I usually recieve from him when I'm asking something from him. Now, it got me thinking - I made a point to ask politely, or at least in a nonchalant manner, yet his immediate response is to tell me that I'm labelling myself as a "victim", as far as I can tell, I haven't done anything that would have one label me as a "victim" and I certainly don't see myself as a "victim."

Then it all of a sudden dawned on me - I'm not the one who's labelling myself as a victim. He is the one calling me a "victim" and is telling me that I'm calling myself a "victim" in order to further his own goals. Now it may seem funny that one's own brother would do this, and for what goals? Well, keeping in mind that he is indeed an asshole, one of his favorite hobbies is to engage in "oneupmanship" against me. By labelling me as a "victim" and establishing that I'm a self-victimizer, he's clearly trying to establish superiority over me.

Now, what's the whole point of this, you may ask? I'm not really sure myself. But if nothing else, it's food for thought the next time you hear a Republican on FOX News talk about "victims."

[lilybdcsa]

Wow! You have my sympathies. I'm a moderate living in a conservative family. Lots of times I have to keep my mouth shut or risk starting a war that no one can win.

Sounds like your brother has found himself a convenient excuse to keep from helping anyone out. Blame it on "victim mentality" and he doesn't have to put himself out. I've noticed that about alot of conservatives. They'd rather spend their time griping about the things they hate than actually working to make things better.

btw, I know two people who truly have "victim mentality". No way do you seem to fit that profile.

Hope you're feeling better.

[.Doc]

I am a conservative, and I am from a family where the political leanings run the complete range from left wing to right. I'm actually not on the same airplane; I jumped off the right wing-tip and into the ultra-right reactionary category quite some time ago.

IMHO, the big difference between liberals and conservatives lies in their personal integrity. Liberals claim to love freedom, but what they really want is total freedom from criticism. If you dare to disagree with one, you will be shut out, shouted down, and generally considered to be in the wrong -- usually due to low intelligence and evil intent. Conservatives, OTOH, usually take themselves a lot less seriously, and simply keep working toward their ultimate goal of building a strong, free, and wealthy society.

Now, I believe that liberals are more likely to misunderstand conservatives than the other way around. For instance, I have never had the inclination to discriminate against anyone for anything. Yet, many times, I have been the victim of "reverse" discrimination. I have never had the power to do anything about this, and the main impact it has had on me is to give me a deep resentment for those who would practice such discrimination. As a conservative, I believe in a merit-based society -- those who do well should be rewarded accordingly. Liberals don't see it that way -- they believe in the equalization of outcomes regardless of merit. Naturally, this has created a great deal of social decay -- much of it founded on the "victim mentality." Moreover, it continues to fuel the fires of prejudice, which is a bad thing.

I have often asked the question "What do liberals want?" I don't know. They seem to want a lot of the same things I want, they just want someone else to pick up the tab for their poor choices. Within my lifetime, this has created a huge, government run and grossly mismanaged welfare state. All of this made possible by politicians who calculate how to create and maintain their power base -- rather than doing what is right for the good of all. If this mentality continues, it will be the downfall of our once-great society. I wish I could prevent that from happening, but at the end of the day, all I can do is hold on to my values, and keep working.

[Some Guy Here]

IMHO, the big difference between liberals and conservatives lies in their personal integrity. Liberals claim to love freedom, but what they really want is total freedom from criticism. If you dare to disagree with one, you will be shut out, shouted down, and generally considered to be in the wrong -- usually due to low intelligence and evil intent. Conservatives, OTOH, usually take themselves a lot less seriously, and simply keep working toward their ultimate goal of building a strong, free, and wealthy society.

You know, (and I'm not afraid to admit my uber-geekness by saying this), but back when I was in high school, I used to love to debate the scientific merits of Star Trek and Star Wars (and I still do). One of the greatest web pages of all time regarding that topic is Michael Wong's "Stardestroyer.net" page. It's a very interesting page, really - the guy's a retired materials science engineer, and he puts a lot of stuff regarding science and logic away from Star Trek or Star Wars. One of the most fascinating parts of his page (as it is, after all, meant to primarily address the various Star Wars vs. Star Trek debates we all had huddled around our computers while surfing the old Newsgroups) was his "logical fallacies" section.

Now, there are several things I can point out in the above quoted paragraph. And I'm going to readily admit here that I'm guilty of a few of them myself in my opening page - it was a sweeping generalization (although make no mistake, other than the named family members prominent conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are well observed to have made such sentiments clear) and I probably could go back and wipe away a few fallacies of my own.

But anyway, other than the aforementioned hasty generalization (regarding both conservatives and liberals), I believe that paragraph is also a clear example of the ad hominem fallacy. In other words, rather than addressing the merits or de-merits of typical liberal platforms, you de-merit liberals on the basis on the integrity of particular individuals - even if it happens to be a lot of individuals (one could also claim that prominent conservatives, such as and in particular Bill O'Reilly, want freedom from personal criticism more than actual freedom, as suggested when O'Reilly, rather than retracting a very understandable mistake, would rather continue to perpetuate his ignorance on the matter, or for that matter Bill O'Reilly's well documented shout-down matches).

Now, I believe that liberals are more likely to misunderstand conservatives than the other way around. For instance, I have never had the inclination to discriminate against anyone for anything. Yet, many times, I have been the victim of "reverse" discrimination. I have never had the power to do anything about this, and the main impact it has had on me is to give me a deep resentment for those who would practice such discrimination. As a conservative, I believe in a merit-based society -- those who do well should be rewarded accordingly. Liberals don't see it that way -- they believe in the equalization of outcomes regardless of merit. Naturally, this has created a great deal of social decay -- much of it founded on the "victim mentality." Moreover, it continues to fuel the fires of prejudice, which is a bad thing.

Now I was guilty of this too, and in all fairness it wasn't expected of you, but I find it noteworthy to note your lack of supporting statements other than what's to be taken at face-value. What examples of "reverse discrimination" did you suffer? (not that I'm questioning that you suffered such - but it would help if you provide even general details) Yes, a part of the typical liberal platform does believe in some degree of of equalization of outcomes, as most glaringly demonstrated by welfare. But liberals are not for complete discontinuation of a merit-based system either. With every serving "liberal" president, there has never been a serious call for the dismantling of the current capitalist system. Some liberals may even suggest that conservatives have their moments disregarding merit as well, when Haliburton was awarded significant Iraq-related contracts with little competition - little need to prove or disprove their own merits compared to other contractors.

And in regards to "social decay," that issue is much more subjective than what certain prominent individuals would like for you to believe. For example, despite a prominent increase in the vending of violent video games (which many people see as evidence of social decay), violent crime across the United States has dropped significantly. This trend in decrease of violent crime is also set against a backdrop of, as O'Reilly calls it, "the secular-progressive transformation of America." The fact of the matter is two-fold; not only is this reflective of slippery slope fallacies, but also false cause (Mexico is a third-world country; therefore, Mexicans will turn the U.S. into a third-world country, and yes this was an actual argument made on an MSNBC program of which I hope to have the transcript of by tomorrow)

Finally, your statement about your lack of discrimination towards anyone is a red herring - your personal treatment of other people has no bearing on the political standings or belief structures of conservatives or liberals.

I have often asked the question "What do liberals want?" I don't know. They seem to want a lot of the same things I want, they just want someone else to pick up the tab for their poor choices.

Are you implying that the common bond between conservatives and liberals is a series of desires that lead to bad choices?

Within my lifetime, this has created a huge, government run and grossly mismanaged welfare state.

The U.S. spends less than 17% of its GDP on social welfare; furthermore the U.S. is not considered a welfare state

All of this made possible by politicians who calculate how to create and maintain their power base -- rather than doing what is right for the good of all.

One can argue that this certainly includes conservative politicians, especially considering the majority they enjoyed in Congress throughout the 1990s and during the 02-04 term, which allowed for them to correct many of the "vices" you cited that still persist.

If this mentality continues, it will be the downfall of our once-great society. I wish I could prevent that from happening, but at the end of the day, all I can do is hold on to my values, and keep working.

Especially given the lack of specific examples, this demonstrates a leap in logic - you state that the U.S. is heading in an undesirable direction even though you fail to name specific elements or even elaborate on what that undesirable direction is beyond generalities.

And finally, I want to make clear something I stated in the first post - I don't consider myself liberal, just more liberal-leaning on certain issues than how I was before (especially on social issues). I would more label myself as a libertarian, or even as still a conservative if I absolutely had to. This may not seem like it in light of the above post, especially since I was playing "Devil's Advocate" to highlight some of the logical fallacies in your post.

[.Doc]

The U.S. gummint spends 17% of GDP on social welfare???!!! My God, it's worse than I thought! If we were spending .17%, I'd say we have a very serious problem! Just think what the people of this country could be doing if 17% of the output of their initiative, ingenuity, and hard work wasn't being re-distributed to people who basically do nothing!

Just think - if we fixed this problem, than a lot of college-educated liberals who think they're smarter than we are would be out of a cushy government job!

[.Doc]

Yeah, you're a liberal. When liberals are faced with the truth, they always drag out that old "logical fallacies" chestnut. Take one statement I made and prove to me that it is a logical fallacy.

[lilybdcsa]

I'm really tired of everyone demonizing social welfare. It would be a tragedy if our country couldn't help the people who need a chance to get their lives back together. My daughter was a victim of spousal abuse and when she escaped that marriage, she was on her own with a young child to raise. Medical benefits, food stamps and college grants helped her get enough schooling to get a very good job and is now a taxpayer helping out the next person who needs it.

In reducing the welfare system which child do we let go hungry? Do we tell the abused women that they must stay in those marriages and possibly get murdered because we can't help them? Do we tell the laid off worker there are no options to help them? It would be nice if every single family in the US had enough work and enough food and enough medical care, but that's not the case. Welfare is not a perfect fix, but it's better than doing nothing.
Are YOU willing to step up and give a job to everyone that needs one?

[.Doc]

Sooo -- you think welfare is such a great thing. OK. Here's the "deal" I'll offer you: YOU pay 80% of your salary to support social welfare systems, and I will have my taxes reduced by a like amount, and I will then do something I cannot afford to do now -- give 10% of my income to charities which support battered women. Ha! Fat chance you'll ever go for that one!

(Intentional yelling) WHEN THE [MARGO SATURN BOXCAR] DID YOUR DAUGHTER'S SPOUSAL ABUSE BECOME MY PROBLEM TO FIX?

Why did she marry some idiot who decided to abuse her? Why didn't she leave him the very first time he demonstrated abusive behavior? NOTHING about your daughter's situation -- or anyone else's personal situation -- is the responsibility of the general public to "fix." There really IS this thing called "individual responsibility." We are responsible for our actions, and we are also responsible for becoming "victims," if that's what happens. If we create an enormous government-mismanaged bureaucracy to "handle" these problems, there will be no social pressure for the problems to be mitigated through the application of traditional morality and family values. That's right, FAMILY VALUES.

If I had the power, I would pull the plug on ALL social welfare and entitlements, with the exception of pay, benefits, and pensions for our military members and federal employees who do not work in the social welfare services sector. I would pull out the safety net, and burn it! Then I'd let nature take it's course. It would be up to the formerly served to either allow their human initiative and ingenuity kick in and fend for themselves, or let nature take it's course.

The answer to your question "which child would I let starve" or whatever it was is simple: Any one whose parents allowed him or her TO starve. I haven't allowed any children to starve. Moreover, I don't feel obligated to continue to support a system which keeps bringing these needy children into the world as a means of keeping a particular political ideology perpetually in power. (Sorry if you got spat on due to the last sentence!)

So there!

[Some Guy Here]

Yeah, you're a liberal. When liberals are faced with the truth, they always drag out that old "logical fallacies" chestnut. Take one statement I made and prove to me that it is a logical fallacy.

Ok, I'm sorry, but this is simply the stupidest thing I have ever heard, ever.

Clearly you don't even understand the concept of logical fallacies or logical argument construction for that matter, and you just demonstrated an unwillingness to understand.

Want me to explain to you logical argument construction? I'm going to wager "no" but I'll do it anyway; logic is the foundation of being able to construct and understand arguments that can stand up to scrutiny and "make sense." If it doesn't make sense, it's a useless and bogus argument. Sorry to spell it out in such obvious terms, but apparently I need to.

"Take one statement I made and prove it's a logical fallacy." Umm, hello? That's what the entire post was about! I posted definitions and examples of such fallacies and provided examples, and in turn requested examples and supporting evidence from you to support your arguments. Instead you displayed intellectual bankruptcy by asking me to do precisely what I just did and dismissing the entire concept of logical argument construction.

EDIT: Looking back on it, I decided that this post was more harshly-worded than it needed to be, so I deleted what I thought were some of the more offensive comments.

[.Doc]

Well, Some Guy Here, I'm still here, so I guess that maybe I'm not so bad after all!

In your first reply, I did see you quote what I'd said, and attempt to "explain" the "logical fallacies" to me. You did about as good a job as anyone I've seen, except for one thing: You didn't convince me that I'm wrong. Then when I point this out, your reaction is to insult me and wish for my banishment. Sigh! Your post did absolutely nothing to make me change my mind about anything I said. I know you will now attribute that to my lack of cognitive ability, or some such thing. Go ahead, I can take it, and I've certainly heard it all before!

I know as much about logic as anyone else I've encountered on the internet, if not more. Yes, I do de-merit individuals based on the integrity of certain individuals, because this is how the human intellectual process works. We see examples of specific behavior regularly repeated by individuals or groups who fall within certain parameters, and conclude that this behavior is common to the majority of them. For example, if over half of the women I see driving vehicles are also talking on cell phones, I conclude that women tend to be inattentive drivers. Since the last vehicular accident I was involved in was caused by an 18-year old girl who was speeding, passing illegally, and talking on a cell phone at the time she hit my Paratransit bus while was making a perfectly correct and legal right turn, what am I to conclude about my previous -- and current - observations about female drivers who talk on cell phones while driving? I'll be the first to admit that I haven't been hit by a female driver who wasn't talking on a cell phone -- but since my accident, I've had a few more "close calls" with those who do! A I committing an ad hominem fallacy here? I think not. My observations have led me to a conclusion. This conclusion leads me to behave in a particular manner whenever I observe the female motorist on a cell phone behavior. BTW, just so you know I don't discriminate on the basis of gender, I also am wary of males who use cell phones while driving, although it is my experience that they are a numerically lesser threat in my area. Your experience may vary.

Anyway, if you care to try again to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, I'll play along. You could start by convincing me that you are not a liberal. Go ahead, give it a try. I'll be here, and I'll reply.

BTW -- I remember a time when being thought of as a "liberal" was a good thing. It usually meant that you had a humanitarian social conscience, an awareness of the misery in the world and it's causes, and a willingness to work for change. Unfortunately, the label of "liberal" has been tarnished by those who have politicized this natural human reaction to prejudice and injustice. They have created Big Gummint in order to address these problems, but they never quite solve them, because they want you to keep voting for them. Pity, that. BTW -- I am referring to both Republicans and Democrats, in case you're wondering. I am not a member of either big government party anymore.

[Some Guy Here]

Well, Some Guy Here, I'm still here, so I guess that maybe I'm not so bad after all!

In your first reply, I did see you quote what I'd said, and attempt to "explain" the "logical fallacies" to me. You did about as good a job as anyone I've seen, except for one thing: You didn't convince me that I'm wrong. Then when I point this out, your reaction is to insult me and wish for my banishment. Sigh! Your post did absolutely nothing to make me change my mind about anything I said. I know you will now attribute that to my lack of cognitive ability, or some such thing. Go ahead, I can take it, and I've certainly heard it all before!

Let's see...in the above paragraph you've managed to one again employ the red herring (I made no such attempt to prove that you were wrong, merely to point out the various fallacies in your post while simultaneously making a request for you to provide support for your position so that I can evaluate your arguments with something better than your personal sentiments), an ad hominem attack (distracting away from the logical fallacies of your post and your failure to comprehend them and attack my position by pointing out my insults towards you which, granted, was an ad hominem attack in turn, although I found your ignorance so massive it was hard for me to ignore), and a new one, one which isn't even listed on Mike Wong's site - an appeal to moral superiority (you reacted to me in a rude manner and called for my banishment; therefore, my position is automatically correct without having to call its validity into question and any subsequent response is likely to be a falsehood since it's also like to be in the form of a personal attack - although this could also be considered an example of style over substance and Mike Wong provides a similar example).

I know as much about logic as anyone else I've encountered on the internet, if not more.

Your failure to understand the logical fallacies I pointed out ("trotting out the old chestnut of 'logical fallacies'") and your failure to counter my claims with nothing more but "prove to me those were logical fallacies" (which I already did in the first post) strongly suggest otherwise.

Yes, I do de-merit individuals based on the integrity of certain individuals, because this is how the human intellectual process works.

This is still a combination ad hominem/red herring. If you look back to the link concerning ad hominem attacks, you will see that an ad hominem is an attack on an individual based on that individual's character or personal integrity with no bearing on his or her position - which is precisely what you are doing. It's also a red herring because regardless of whether or not this is "how the human intellectual process works," it has no bearing on the central issue. The central issue, as you can read back from the title of the thread, is "the differences between liberals and conservatives," not "whether liberals or conservatives lie more often." If that were the case, I wager I can de-merit as many conservatives as you can liberals, whether they be politicians or otherwise - we can debate endlessly of the personal integrity of George W. Bush when it came to making his decision to launch the Iraq War, the personal integrity of "Duke" Cunningham when he engaged in criminal activity or Bill O'Reilly's dishonest debating style.

We see examples of specific behavior regularly repeated by individuals or groups who fall within certain parameters, and conclude that this behavior is common to the majority of them. For example, if over half of the women I see driving vehicles are also talking on cell phones, I conclude that women tend to be inattentive drivers. Since the last vehicular accident I was involved in was caused by an 18-year old girl who was speeding, passing illegally, and talking on a cell phone at the time she hit my Paratransit bus while was making a perfectly correct and legal right turn, what am I to conclude about my previous -- and current - observations about female drivers who talk on cell phones while driving? I'll be the first to admit that I haven't been hit by a female driver who wasn't talking on a cell phone -- but since my accident, I've had a few more "close calls" with those who do! A I committing an ad hominem fallacy here? I think not. My observations have led me to a conclusion.

You're correct, it's not an ad hominem, but it is a hasty generalization, as well as a failure to properly understand statistics (or for that matter, what an ad hominem actually is). Your judgment regarding the driving habits of females is based on a vary small statistical sample - based on the females you have chosen to take notice of while you were driving, which is but a small sample of the population of driving females in your city, to say nothing of the entire country. When looking at what insurance companies say (who, BTW, actually do look at a proper statistical sampling), females actually generally drive safer than males based on insurance premiums paid - which, BTW, are based on statistical driver safety information.

This conclusion leads me to behave in a particular manner whenever I observe the female motorist on a cell phone behavior. BTW, just so you know I don't discriminate on the basis of gender, I also am wary of males who use cell phones while driving, although it is my experience that they are a numerically lesser threat in my area. Your experience may vary.

Indeed it does vary for the reasons I explained above - my experiences and your experiences would be based on separate, small and local statistical samplings.

Anyway, if you care to try again to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, I'll play along. You could start by convincing me that you are not a liberal. Go ahead, give it a try. I'll be here, and I'll reply.

I'm tempted to say that this is a red herring (with a good dose of personal condescending going on), but just to humor you I'll convince you that I am a liberal:

- I believe the Iraq War was a mistake made on false pretenses (though I'll add that I don't believe the situation is adequate to withdraw) Furthermore I think we should've finished the mission in Afghanistan first (although, I will concede that this is mainly a side-effect of Clinton's shrinking of the military resulting in an inadequacy of being able to fight a two-front war).

- Though I still stand by my libertarian leanings, I believe that gun control at least somewhat more stringent than current standards would be helpful

- I believe we should give greater heed to our allies, especially our European allies, before making unilateral decisions.

- I believe in more stringent fuel standards for cars and greater emissions control (regardless of global warming, which until recently used to be just a side issue - the issue of aerial pollution is a more immediate issue concerning public health)

- Here's one you'll really love - I believe in free immigration, and believe that the only purpose border checkpoints should serve is to ensure criminals and terrorists are filtered out.

BTW -- I remember a time when being thought of as a "liberal" was a good thing. It usually meant that you had a humanitarian social conscience, an awareness of the misery in the world and it's causes, and a willingness to work for change. Unfortunately, the label of "liberal" has been tarnished by those who have politicized this natural human reaction to prejudice and injustice.

Actually the "classical" definition of "liberal" can be found here

They have created Big Gummint in order to address these problems, but they never quite solve them, because they want you to keep voting for them.

As you mentioned in the next sentence, this is true of Democrats and Republicans. Politicians are very much, well, politically motivated, but I see how that has any real bearing here.

[.Doc]

Well, Some Guy Here, I'll say one thing, pal, you've got one heck of a lot of time on your hands!

However, thanks for that last part, where you pretty much prove that I was right -- you are a liberal!

BTW, I've seen postings such as yours before, even written a few of them myself -- right after taking a logic course in college. I hope you get that out of your system as soon as possible, and go back to a style of writing and debate which allows others to see what you really think.

You've really lost me on that "free immigration" thing. That is so horribly wrong. But I'm out of time; I have to check out today's comics and get ready for work.

[Some Guy Here]

BTW, I've seen postings such as yours before, even written a few of them myself -- right after taking a logic course in college. I hope you get that out of your system as soon as possible, and go back to a style of writing and debate which allows others to see what you really think.

You mean just emoting sentiments without a shred of support to back them up? Because that's the only thing I can figure out you're implying here.

Seriously, I've never met someone so stubbornly stupid and anti-logical since my days on Usenet (and that was a very long time ago). I get the impression that you seem to think logical argument construction is some "darned hifalutin' liberal mind trick" and that rationality is...well, you never really did explain what your alternative is (likely because you don't have one) when, simply put, rationality and logic are one in the same.

I'll give Bill O'Reilly credit for one thing at least - when he was on the Late Show with Letterman, Letterman said something to the effect of "I feel that most of what you say, Bill, is BS" after which O'Reilly called him out and told him to show some evidence. You can't just "feel" your arguments; you can't just "feel" that "liberals are going to lead to the moral decay of the country." You have to provide at least some solid basis or at least a premise to your argument, such as "the secular-progressive trend of free and open sexual relationships including advocation of homosexuality is going to lead to the moral decay of the country." You couldn't even provide that much.

[lilybdcsa]

NOTHING about your daughter's situation -- or anyone else's personal situation -- is the responsibility of the general public to "fix."

Here's what another expert has to say about that....

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

(Matthew 25) Are you going to tell me that He was wrong?

[mere cog in the machine]

Hey .Doc, I just read your profile! Is it really true that one of your hobbies is "kicking beggars" or are you just pulling our legs?