The hypocrisy of the left: animals vs humans

[hoosierdoc]

I thought of a nice analogy today.

Let's consider a hippie free love tree hugger girl working at an animal rescue shelter. Someone watched a raccoon get struck by a car and brought it to her. This raccoon used to be fully capable of supporting itself in the world but was stricken with an injury. The hippie wants the raccoon to get back into the wild and not live in a zoo/cage/die so she nurtures it back to health over six months. But she realizes she can't make the raccoon dependent on her or it will never survive in the wild again, so she is diligent to provide food in a manner that makes it still have to hunt a bit and regain the ability to feed itself. When the animal is ready she releases it to go be a raccoon again.

Now consider how the same hippie girl looks at various minority groups and those in lower socioeconomic classes. She sees them as victims of an unjust system and the only way to help them is to provide total sustenance forever. Any attempt to decrease the support and get them back into the workforce is seen as hateful and cruel. There is no effort to help restore them to independence and let them out of their "cage" to regain their full potential.

A whale washes up on the beach and hundreds come out to help it get back on track. Putting it in sea world is cruel and awful. But put in a human in subsidized housing with free food/healthcare/utilities to likely maintain that status for life and you're the most compassionate person around

 

[IndyGal65]

I thought of a nice analogy today.

Let's consider a hippie free love tree hugger girl working at an animal rescue shelter. Someone watched a raccoon get struck by a car and brought it to her. This raccoon used to be fully capable of supporting itself in the world but was stricken with an injury. The hippie wants the raccoon to get back into the wild and not live in a zoo/cage/die so she nurtures it back to health over six months. But she realizes she can't make the raccoon dependent on her or it will never survive in the wild again, so she is diligent to provide food in a manner that makes it still have to hunt a bit and regain the ability to feed itself. When the animal is ready she releases it to go be a raccoon again.

Now consider how the same hippie girl looks at various minority groups and those in lower socioeconomic classes. She sees them as victims of an unjust system and the only way to help them is to provide total sustenance forever. Any attempt to decrease the support and get them back into the workforce is seen as hateful and cruel. There is no effort to help restore them to independence and let them out of their "cage" to regain their full potential.

A whale washes up on the beach and hundreds come out to help it get back on track. Putting it in sea world is cruel and awful. But put in a human in subsidized housing with free food/healthcare/utilities to likely maintain that status for life and you're the most compassionate person around

Very interesting analogy. Me...I'm just toasty.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I thought of a nice analogy today.

Let's consider a hippie free love tree hugger girl working at an animal rescue shelter. Someone watched a raccoon get struck by a car and brought it to her. This raccoon used to be fully capable of supporting itself in the world but was stricken with an injury. The hippie wants the raccoon to get back into the wild and not live in a zoo/cage/die so she nurtures it back to health over six months. But she realizes she can't make the raccoon dependent on her or it will never survive in the wild again, so she is diligent to provide food in a manner that makes it still have to hunt a bit and regain the ability to feed itself. When the animal is ready she releases it to go be a raccoon again.

Now consider how the same hippie girl looks at various minority groups and those in lower socioeconomic classes. She sees them as victims of an unjust system and the only way to help them is to provide total sustenance forever. Any attempt to decrease the support and get them back into the workforce is seen as hateful and cruel. There is no effort to help restore them to independence and let them out of their "cage" to regain their full potential.

A whale washes up on the beach and hundreds come out to help it get back on track. Putting it in sea world is cruel and awful. But put in a human in subsidized housing with free food/healthcare/utilities to likely maintain that status for life and you're the most compassionate person around

Of course, a hippie free love tree hugger would respond to your analogy by asking: so, you're saying lower socioeconomic minorities are equivalent to wild animals?

 

[Lowe0]

Your analogy breaks down when considering the relative scarcity of raccoon food vs economic opportunity. There are only so many jobs to go around.

Besides, if an animal hunts for food and fails to find enough, it's a natural indicator of overpopulation. The animal will die, because that's the means of population control it has. As more industrious animals, we humans have developed other options, but for whatever reason those are anathema to the Republican Party.

 

[eldirector]

So, if one were to find enough food to ensure their family's survival, it only makes sense they should give it to other non-successful families. Thereby putting both their futures at risk, and ensuring that poor life skills continue to be passed generation to generation.

Darwin would cringe.

The Doc's analogy is .... interesting. The point I find most so: we humans would rather give a man a fish for a day, than teach him to provide for his family for life. Little thought is given to the fishermen who provide that day's catch, or if the fisheries themselves can continue to support those waiting for their daily gift.

For being the "smartest animals on the planet", we make some pretty short-sighted decisions. I SWEAR the dolphins are laughing at us.

 

[Lowe0]

So, if one were to find enough food to ensure their family's survival, it only makes sense they should give it to other non-successful families. Thereby putting both their futures at risk, and ensuring that poor life skills continue to be passed generation to generation.

Darwin would cringe.

That depends on whether the social behavior of primates serves an evolutionary purpose.

 

[eldirector]

That depends on whether the social behavior of primates serves an evolutionary purpose.

I would argue that it most certainly does. Wouldn't have evolved if it didn't.

But we humans ain't got no time fo dat. We are smarter than nature, and can beat her at her own game.

 

[cosermann]

I...put in a human in subsidized housing with free food/healthcare/utilities to likely maintain that status for life and you're the most compassionate person around

That's because it's not about compassion. It's about dependency. The "compassion" thing is just plausible political cover. Democrats have had to get more sophisticated about their slavery.

It's just like gun control is not about crime (or even safety). Again, that's just plausible political cover. It's all about control and concentrating power in the hands of the .gov.

 

[hoosierdoc]

That's because it's not about compassion. It's about dependency. The "compassion" thing is just plausible political cover. Democrats have had to get more sophisticated about their slavery.

It's just like gun control is not about crime (or even safety). Again, that's just plausible political cover. It's all about control and concentrating power in the hands of the .gov.

Yep, exactly. They don't want people leaving their cage and endless supply of food and water.

 

[spencer rifle]

Your analogy breaks down when considering the relative scarcity of raccoon food vs economic opportunity. There are only so many jobs to go around.

Besides, if an animal hunts for food and fails to find enough, it's a natural indicator of overpopulation. The animal will die, because that's the means of population control it has. As more industrious animals, we humans have developed other options, but for whatever reason those are anathema to the Republican Party.

Not necessarily. Overpopulation is not always the reason - sometimes it's bad genes, learned behaviors (losing fear of people, for example), disease (distemper, etc.), accident (i.e. dental malocclusion caused by injury), getting excluded from a territory by a bigger and stronger animal, dependency on human feeding that stops for whatever reason, some bleeding heart capturing it and dropping it off in a park where all the territories are already occupied. All of these have parallels in human society. We can help remedy these in human and animal communities, but that does not mean we always should. Nor does it mean we should be forced to.

Once upon a time a woman brought a young starling in to our nature center. She insisted we feed and care for this bird. She would not take "no" for an answer, nor did she want to understand about the bird she brought. Starlings are invasive exotics that have no place in a natural setting. After some conversation and attempted education, we told her we would do what was best for it. After she left we fed it to a hawk.

 

[HoughMade]

...There are only so many jobs to go around...

Um...no. The number of jobs vary in proportion to population.

...we humans have developed other options, but for whatever reason those are anathema to the Republican Party.

Oh really? Tell me more.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Um...no. The number of jobs vary in proportion to population.

Really? What a fascinating theory. What is that proportion? How do you explain variances in unemployment between nations with similar populations?

 

[HoughMade]

Really? What a fascinating theory. What is that proportion? How do you explain variances in unemployment between nations with similar populations?

How would you explain a 2016 unemployment rate (U3) of 5% with a U.S. population of 319 million people and about the same unemployment rate (actually .4% higher) in 1996 with a U.S. population of 270 million. 50 million more people, and roughly the same unemployment rate. the only answer is that the number of jobs grew in proportion to the population.

Pick essentially any 2 years. While there are variations in unemployment rate, it is not due to population because the # of jobs always grows with the population. If they didn't the unemployment rate would grow proportionately with the population. Over ther last 100 years, has this been the trend?

the U.S. Population in 1916 was 102 million. The unemployment rate was about 5%. In 1956, the population about 169 million, 67 million more. The unemployment rate was under 5%. In 1976, the unemployment rate was around 7.5-8% with a population of 218 Million, but by 2006, the unemployment rate was back under 4.6% with a population of 298 million.

From 1916 to 2016, the population of the U.S. grew by 313%, but the unemployment rate is the same. So what argument is there that the # of jobs don't grow in proportion to the population?

...How do you explain variances in unemployment between nations with similar populations?

Difference in natural resources, industries and government regulation. In relatively free, first world economies, has there been one where the unemployment rate has grown proportionately over time with population growth? Or did the unemployment rate stay relatively stable even as population doubled or tripled?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Your analogy breaks down when considering the relative scarcity of raccoon food vs economic opportunity. There are only so many jobs to go around.

Besides, if an animal hunts for food and fails to find enough, it's a natural indicator of overpopulation. The animal will die, because that's the means of population control it has. As more industrious animals, we humans have developed other options, but for whatever reason those are anathema to the Republican Party.

OK, now how about accounting for artificial barriers to entry. The raccoon doesn't need a hunting/foraging license to survive. What is there that we do that does not involve a license, a tax, or some other form of official permission or remittance to any of a number of authorities in order to make our own way?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

How would you explain a 2016 unemployment rate (U3) of 5% with a U.S. population of 319 million people and about the same unemployment rate (actually .4% higher) in 1996 with a U.S. population of 270 million. 50 million more people, and roughly the same unemployment rate. the only answer is that the number of jobs grew in proportion to the population.

How would you explain the spike of 10% unemployment in the late 2000s? For that matter, how would you explain seasonal trends? You're just sort of sweeping the fluxuations under the carpet. Ignoring the 3% swing here and 5% there because it doesn't fit your idea doesn't make them go away...you've got to fit your theory to reality, not vice versa. If job growth is tied directly to population growth, a DOUBLING of unemployment seems...unhandy to the theory. Or that South Dakota is knocking around a 2.5% unemployment rate but West Virginia is 6.5%, well over double. Yet West Virginia has over double the population of South Dakota. Again, rather unhandy to population just makes jobs at some proportional rate.

Your argument boils down to population x some number that varies = available jobs. "Some number that varies = anywhere from roughly 3% to 10%-ish" That's not really how a proportion works. That's just saying you can find some number and find some points along the chart that matches that number....so it works as long as you ignore all the points along the chart that don't.

Perhaps, just perhaps, spending matters? That if more people get jobs that pay something, they buy things with that something, and that creates more jobs? People losing jobs and no longer getting paid something don't have that something to spend, and jobs go away. Individuals and companies spending money makes jobs. People having babies does not make jobs. Well, maybe in the OB/GYN department, but you get the idea. Sort of where the idea of natural resources and industries enters? Goods to buy and sell? Population is an indirect factor, more consumers, more workers, but without money changing hands no new jobs so there are no new jobs so there are no new consumers, they are just more people.

This is one of the reasons that the growing wage gap is a concern. Less money being spent = fewer jobs = more incentive to save money = less money being spent = fewer jobs, etc. That's the exact spiral of Japan's recession once the ball got rolling. There population didn't change, their money supply and how much that money moved did.

 

[indiucky]

Oh really? Tell me more.

It's abortion....He likes bringing it up in threads....

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It's abortion....He likes bringing it up in threads....

I would not have made that connection. Here I thought he was talking about a specialized economy where people get training and education for jobs that remain vacant. Rereading it, I suspect you're right, though.

 

[Lowe0]

Oh really? Tell me more.

Contraception, mostly. I'd rather take abortion off the table, but we need to cut unintended pregnancy rates first. We have too many people competing for the same slice of the pie, and I think it's morally and practically preferable to try to reduce the number of people fighting for it, rather than try to claw more of the pie away from those who already have it.

 

[Lowe0]

It's abortion....He likes bringing it up in threads....

Swing and a miss, champ.

 

[HoughMade]

How would you explain the spike of 10% unemployment in the late 2000s? For that matter, how would you explain seasonal trends? You're just sort of sweeping the fluxuations under the carpet...

Of course there are fluctuations for a myriad of reasons and in the very short time in a specific geographical location, population may be a factor.

However, as population grows, the number of jobs grows. It's simply a fact and it makes sense. More consumers, more jobs.