Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour
You have made some good points. But, you're being kind of an #######. Calling someone absurd because they have an observation which doesn't align with your own makes me feel that way about you.
And, I didn't suggest being overly compassionate leads to "leave them be". That's you assuming and not really taking the definition of compassion at face value. I believe being overly compassionate leads to handling this issue with kid gloves (too much sympathy and concern) and ultimately not accomplishing anything.
If it's funded by the government, it's always going to be political. You just can't avoid that. If all of the parties to agree on a solution and run with it, that would be beautiful and effective politics.
|
Sorry that you think I’m an #######. I don’t understand how you can make up a definition of compassion that is synonymous with “kid gloves” while being pedantic about “political.” I know what you believe, and I’m telling you that I disagree. Can you handle that without low-brow name calling?
Compassion just doesn’t have anything to do with “kids gloves” and it doesn’t have anything to do with ignoring a problem (you’re the one who brought it up, I don’t know why you related the two if you didn’t want me to assume you were relating the two). “Too much” sympathy and concern is pretty hard to define, but you believe it means not doing enough, or not using hard enough measures. I’m telling you that if there was too much compassion, the “compassionate” tactics that have been deployed would be a lot stronger. I don’t see how you can begin to believe there is too much compassion when most homeless people are left to die and there is a severe lack of funding and effort to fix the problem. That’s why it’s absurd. The reality is that we’re not responding strongly enough in either a compassionate way or a harsher way, and you’re saying the half-hearted response is actually just too compassionate, which is not reality.
(EDIT: to use an analogy, it’s like if someone was going hungry and you had the ability to buy them a full meal and teach them how to cook, but instead you gave them a single french fry, and someone accused you of being “too” compassionate because of it. That’s why it’s absurd.)
And yes, it is going to be political in the sense “of and/or relating to politics.” Obviously. But I explained in the original post that it should be bipartisan and not politicized, ie used as a political issue to secure votes. I don’t know how else to make myself clear to you.