Yesterday Bill O’Reilly indicated that half our country are moochers for taking government assistance, but then he qualified it by stating, some for good reasons and some for not. The first part of what he says is most likely a fact when one considers certain factors, 
the second, which is also true, might be totally misleading. Let me explain.
People on the right don’t distinguish ‘need’ from ‘greed’ in their argument (as they also do with ‘cannabis’ and ‘hard drugs’). Then they wait for the opponent to react in a way in which they are prepared for, i.e., an argument only in terms of ‘lazy’ people taking hard earned tax money. But this is true about only a portion of those receiving public assistance.
The O’Reilly’s of the world are literally ‘acting in ignorance’ by basing their argument on the assumption that a large percent of those receiving government assistance would be self-sufficient if not given assistance. Yet, for all they know, many military, retired, children, mentally ill, sick, etc., will end up being the vast majority of those receiving benefits.
Without knowing the truth about how many people are actually ‘mooching off’ their earnings they have no reason to oppose public assistance except for not wanting to be taxed more. By agreeing that they are at least partially right (after all, a portion do mooch) we take care of their ‘concern’ by finding out how much real mooching is going on and then eliminating it as best we can. But there is nothing to argue about until an unbiased measurement of mooching is made!
The O’Reilly’s are ignorant of the facts they base their argument on and yet qualify it in a way that backs them out of blame when the facts come out (“I said only ‘some’ do”). In the mean time they do a lot of damage to compassion.
420psych
Why I Aim At Being Neither Politically Left nor Right
There was a point in my life where my anger towards ‘society’ seemed more like nonsense than an explanation. Explaining one’s lack of success as caused by society’s opposition is similar to saying that the word ‘cat’ can scratch. Let me explain.
People are political and naturally organize themselves. But organizations are not living things, generate no intentions of their own, and can be used as tools merely for the intent of those in charge.
Metaphorically we attribute ‘mind’ to artifacts. Drones programmed and released to target a mark may be said to calculate ‘for the sake of’ what they were created for. Drones seem like they have intent, but it’s an ‘artificial intent,’ a derived intentionality whose initial source always goes back to a human.
‘For the sake of’ is not the type of cause used in scientific areas of study. Nothing, not even evolution, has been found to be ‘up to something.’ Evolution has no foresight and doesn’t possess the able to act purposefully. Life’s ‘purpose’ seems nothing more than life replicating more life.
Apart from action originating from a mind limited to living things, or humans, a large portion of the population claim that one mind oversees, and/or controls, all things. Supernatural claims are beyond scientific investigation and can’t be falsified by scientific terms. That’s why they call it faith, although there is an argument that Catholics treat the church as if it were God, as Protestants do the bible.
Whether one looks to the government, or any organization, as living mind intent on having its way, or to an eternal mind for the sake of whatever a particular sect holds dear, all evidence demonstrate that only living things act for the sake of something. Governments, churches, books and any organization that humans generate are used as tools for those in control. This is why today’s particular political issues will fade in significance while the pretend minds of government, business and religion seem to forever fight for dominance.
Even if I choose to participate in the ideological veneer that glosses over my responsibility for what I’m up to, I need to respect those others who, no matter what imaginary things they privately claim to be true, make their political decisions based on how people publically treat each other in holding themselves personally responsible for their own actions. Neither society, nor God, is responsible for the way you act.
Share this:
Like this: