Friar Bijou wrote:
And there's my point, right there. You don't actually care about the people.
The guy who's labored at an homeless shelter for over a decade doesn't care about the people? Huh.
First off, I was using the word "you" in a general sense, not you specifically. Given multiple uses of the form "if you do X, then you Y", I thought that was clear.
Secondly, do you volunteer your time at the shelter? Or is it a job you get paid to do? Not placing any specific value judgements here, but if that's your employment, then while I'm not going to insist that you *don't* care about the people at the shelter (I'd be shocked if that was the case actually), but that's not a valid argument to claim that you care *more* about people than someone else.
The guy who so clearly values money over people (you) gets to make judgment calls on the motivations/empathy of half the country? Double huh.
That's a pretty amazing set of assumptions there. Let's ignore the argument I'm making and make personal attacks instead. Well, that's at least consistent.
My point, in case you missed it, is that when we get into the political arena (or heck, just the PR angle), it's not uncommon for people to make a huge deal of "supporting a group", when it's more about their benefit for being seen as supporting said group than it really is about that group or their well being. And yes, I happen to believe that a lot of what motivates the Democratic party as an organization (not individuals themselves) is the perception of being on "the side" of various victimized groups, so they can gain greater political support in return.
You're free to disagree, argue against, etc, but countering with "but you're a terrible selfish person, so your opinion doesn't count" is a crappy response. How about responding to what I said? Crazy huh?