Comments by "jean-louis pech" (@jean-louispech4921) on "Who's More Compassionate: The Left or the Right? | 5 Minute Video" video.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
+Say no to democide
yes there are 2 ideological axes .
In addition to left right, the other one oppose egoist tendencies (libertarians and liberals ) versus focus on social bind.
The first limit or destroy social bind between peoples (each for self, and all agaisnt all), and then reduce the state.
For the second in ancient societies there was no state ( like indians tribes), in the modern version the social bind is managed by a state. Well ,quakers, amishs live under this type of societyand have no state.
The state can bring one or two of the subtypes of social bind :
vertical bind = authoritarism , army, police, national identity, enforced official religion , etc...
horizontal bind = solidarity, social protection, public education, culture of unity above differences, etc...
indivdiualism rejects vertical social bind.
particularism rejects the horizontal social bind.
This is here the difference between left and right :
Left favors horizontal social bind. State is the more easy way in modern society for applying institutionalised social link.
Right favors vertical social bind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pedromeneses5661
Bad answer, health care and social welfare are not different thing, they are part of the same logic, the logic of treating all humans equally as humans, and not as member of a specific category, or just as bank account. This is linked to the notion of horizontal social link.
Lack of social welfare is bad for the society , since you think the society not as an abstract concept, but something made of human being.
Slavery societies did not had welfare.
Nazi did not gave welfare to jews, disabled, etc....
Third world countries with high criminality do not have welfare.
The countries with more democracy, respect of individual freedom, less criminality, etc..., are the country with social welfare.
Keeping population in the misery is a sign of great stupidity, not social welfare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rickyoldtree
Oh you are so ignorant and delusional.
Because what i say has more deepness than your average narrow minded conservative (pleonasm inside) can understand.
Speaking about tyranny shows how you are wrong and stupid, while i just speak about a world view were peoples are really more free, and do not live under the tyranny of the plutocracy supporting economic liberalism .
You are so stupid that you don't try to understand you react like a Pavlovian dog to the word communist or anything that is related to, then it means that you make zero thinking.
Like all stupid conservatives you react only with stereotype.
You are not enough smart for understanding that stalin or mao claiming being communist was just propaganda. And then like the king of the idiots you trust the propaganda of a dictator you find loathing.
POlitic is more complex than what you believe (because you don't really think).
This is why you are just another conservative joker who do not have serious opinion about politic.
The proof that you are a stupid ignorant is that you don't want to see that the more democratic country are country where left wing parties have an heavy weight on the society, this country are not democratic because they are capitalists but because they have applied the ideas of the left wing movements, like the democratic vote and abolition of slavery from the french revolution allowing everybody to vote without limit of race, sex or wealth, or ideas from the socialist movement about health care, social social welfare, right and freedoms for the workers, equality between men and women, etc....
All of this things are not from capitalism, and was fought by capitalists. Nazism was supported by big capitalist corporations who were rejecting all social policies from the left wing parties of socialist origins including social democrats.
If you are to stupid for not seeing that collective healthcare and social welfare are part of a common world view, this is your problem and sign of your ignorance, not the proof that i am what you say.
In fact you are too ignorant for commenting what i say.
Your long message is not a critic against my messages, but the exposition of your ignorance, your limitations, your stupidity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williamjewell6247
Well i don't know what you have in mind, but the US healthcare, is not really the model for healthcare in the world.The in the world public healthcare in most advanced countries are not dependents from private healthcare, of of private donors, doctors have a wage, etc....
Funding of public healthcare can be done by state, municipalities, taxes, delayed wage, etc....
If public healthcare give the best healthcares in the world, this is because they are not what you describe.
1
-
@williamjewell6247
Public service, should be at the service of the public, and this is the duty of the state, or other collective institution , to allow peoples to get universal healthcare.
This is how it works in most of the countries.
Then i don't see where you want to go, but not how it works in democratic countries.
Why? because it is at the service of the public, it allows universal healthcare, and then cover everybody, and not just the peoples who can pay private assurance and hospital. Then the global health level of the population is better.
Health is not a question of choice, it is something needed for having a free life, and not being limited by disease, disability .. or death. This is why in democratic society they offer universal healthcare to all the individual.
Health of individuals is more important than external drive like economic profit, in democratic societies, where the individual, the human is the drive of the society .
Floor prices are made to allow peoples to get healthcare even if they are not riches
Let those who need healthcare, to get healthcare.
This is the base of free ( or low cost ) and universal healthcare in democracies.
What matters is the point of view of everybody. And everybody need healthcare at a moment, then the end of your message is meaningless.
When you see which countries do not have universal healthcare, we can see that you attack against universal healthcare is not for the defense of the freedom. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, some African countries , including the chaotic Somalia, this is not a list of free and healthy countries who do not allow universal healthcare.
Then you don't understand what you are defending. It looks that you don't care about the freedom of the individual to get healthcare, because public healthcare allow universal healthcare, the healthcare for peoples who need it.
Freedom to everybody to get healthcare, or exclusion of peoples from healthcare and health services, by price, religion, nationality, sex, etc...
This is the real ideological antagonism.
Democracies choose the first by allowing universal healthcare supported by public institutions.
Peoples who do not care about the individual , and lock him in stereotypes, prejudices , etc...choose the second.
1
-
@williamjewell6247
"that is not the purpose or job of the state"
What is the purpose of a state is a question of ideology and politic applying this ideology : giving drive to the society, to the state.
Drive by security and fear only , or in one concept reject of loss , is a right wing ideology, not a general drive for all ideological orientations .
What you say was right in the antiquity and in the middle age, nice eras known for their great freedom of individual.
A state driven by security and fear, does not defend individuals but Order.
This is why in this societies, where state was just about security, there was slavery, no freedom of speech, etc...
Oh and you don't know read what i say, because i speak about other collectives institutions, not just the state....
Public universal healthcare is about seeing everyone as individual,, and that all individual can need healthcare.
Non universal healthcare do not see peoples as individual , but just purses on feet, or reduced to some categories like religion, nation, sex,, race, etc ....
I speak about the countries who have and who don't have universal healthcare, then about facts not theory, and you do like if the most advanced democracies did not have universal healthcare.
What you say is is not what says reality.
Public universal healthcare give better coverage than non public non universal healthcare.
Then i don't see what you try to defend.
We don't care if riches peoples don't have more money than they already have.
Health of individual is more important than big purses in the hand of the riches. Your position makes you anti individualist, you don't c are about the individual, you care just about the ego of the riches who want more money.
1
-
@williamjewell6247
Caring for the egoism of some peoples or caring about the health of the individuals because they are individuals.
You make your choice by refusing the universal healthcare, then you don't care about the individuals and their health. You want limit the very important freedom for all individuals to get health, to peoples who don't have money for paying private healthcare, private assurances.
If you care about the individual and their health, then you should be happy that everybody can get access to healthcare, but this is not the case. All your messages is a restriction to access to healthcare for a lot of peoples, by rejecting universal healthcare.
You want deny to children who don't have the chance to have riches parents, to get healthcare, and then you deny them to be able to become autonomous by staying healthy.
You reject the best healthcare in the world, and then this is the proof that you don't care about the heath of peoples.
If you were really individualist, if you really care about the individual, you should be happy that all the individuals can get access to the best healthcare.
This is not what you say.
"Since when?"
Since the beginning of the ideological antagonism between Left wing and Right wing. Since the Left versus Right ideological antagonism is based on psychological antagonism between two psychological drive, and that the right wing was the one who is driven by fear.
Since the right is about defense of the power of the elites : king, nobles, religious, militaries, misogynist men, great leader (fuhrer, duce, etc... in some other languages), slave masters and other owners of private economic property, etc... Since the right likes tough police, justice and death penalty. Since the right hate systems where everybody share the power. Since the right reject equality and universalism ( values related to joy/sadness).
Since that political psychology find that the psychology of right wing ideologies is elated to fear. Since neurology find that right wing conservative use more their brain amygdala, that manage fear, etc...
Who want weapons because of fear of criminality of civil war? the right wing
Who is focused on the security? the right
who want tough police and justice and death penalty? the right
on which side are the religious fear monger ? the right
on which side are peoples who fear racial mixity? the right
Which side care about the fear of big capitalists to loose their power? the right
....
i guess we can make a longer list.
Since sciences point the link between right wing ideologies, like conservatism and fear, denying in the wind is useless.
I am attacking egoist, egocentric, riches peoples who deny healthcare to other peoples , even children.
1
-
@jimmyandtimmy8514
Saying that you are fear monger is just science, knowledge and understanding, not stupid.
Stupidity is denying science, knowledge, understanding, this is what you make.
Conservatives values ( tradition, security, power, ) are values driven by fear and anger.
Nationalists are driven by fear.
Bigots are driven by fear.
Racists are driven by fear.
Sexists are driven by fear.
Conservation of the power of the riches, religious, dominant male, superior race, etc... is driven by fear.
The real right wing are driven by fear, because fear and anger are the core drive of the right wing conservative ideas.
Fear goes with separation, walls, discrimination, etc...
Then i don't care about the deny of knowledge by a narrow minded ignorant.
Ignorance and lie are not an answer.
Progressives abolish slavery, progressives give rights to women, because this is progressives politics.
Conservatives conserve slavery, conservatives conserve sexist society, because this is conservative politics.
Nazi get the power with the help of the right wing conservatives.
Trump and all billionaires of his governemnt are the Elites.
Rejecting peoples from healthcare is not justice, nor security, it is just egocentric.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just propaganda
yes richer peoples are more selfish and don't care about the others.
The USA are one of the more richier nation in the world, there are enought wealth for sharing among everyone without harming rich people.
For conservatives being compationate, is stop helping poor parents for the healthcare of their children . As result the USA have the worst ratio of first year children death rate in the western world.
The "compation" of conservative kill or make suffering babies.
Liberals want to help this parents and save the life of their babies, by giving help, because they are compationates.
It debunks the claims of the video, the conservative don't want to know if healthcare of babies do good, they don't want healthare for poor's babies because they are not compationate. While in every civilised countries where psychopatic conservative don't destroy social protection, healthcare of poor's babies and their mother do good.
Nordic people prove that public social protection give better results : high taxs, solidarity programs , general social protection, lowest economic inequality in the world, and ..... they have the best result on the Human Developpement Index, going with good results in health statistics , and have more freedom than in the USA.
In short prager say that what worlks elsewhoere in the word doesn't work in the USA ...
why?
americans are more stupid?
No in fact the antisocial politic of conservatives doesn't work and do very bad.
1
-
I. U. H. well you are a liar.
Cognitive sciences are against your claim.
Conservative peoples use more their amygdala and the primitive cognitive process, making them thinking more irrational (this is why most conservatives are very religious), believeing in false belief, and to manipulation. This is why right wing people follow the leis of trump.
On the other hand liberal people, use more their Anterior Cingular Cortex, and the advanced cognitive process related to it, allowing advanced cognitive working, allowing thinking out of binaries box. They are more rationals and are more able to understand complex things, then they do not fear truth.
What make liberal anger, is injustice, what make conservatives anger is when injustices they want to conserve (inequalities) are in danger.
1
-
@Tater Salad
This is not taking a side that define who is a good or bad person, but the ideas defended. And many peoples are more or less mixed along the different questions in politic.
And ideas from left are more compassionate and honest than right wing ideas based on ego and primitives negatives emotions ( like fear, anger, disgust).
Ego and primitive negative emotions ( both are related ) are what drive evils, dishonest peoples.
Best example are psychopaths who lack of empathy and are over represented among big criminals.
Mafias society's rules , for example , are based on right wing ideas : power of a leader, hierarchy, tradition, etc.... It is the core of a society based on violence, like all classic warrior dominated societies. The political translation would be a monarchy or a conservative dictatorship.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derekkisner6939
which point?
ben shapiro the narrow minded guy who observes that in domains based on openness to novelty and open mind, university and Hollywood, there is a majority of peoples with open minded ideas with openness to novelty. And that openness to novelty leads to liberal values instead of conservatives values.
He just invented the lukewarm water.
It is just the logic of ideas, the relation between mental process and political ideas, then shapiro dislikes logic. It is the same thing in the domain of new technologies, where peoples need to be creatives, then tend to be more liberal.
I am sure there are more conservative peoples in the army or in religions and cults. But he will not complain about this fact, i guess.
Ben shapiro the intolerant guy who does not accept that people could critic the bad politic of dumb bush.....
When i see some position of shapiro i see that you are wrong, because his positions are wrong :
like lowering taxes on the very wealthy ( they don't need that, they are already very wealthy ) , privatizing social security ( nothing good to expect for the average citizen, but only for the wealthy capitalist owning the private company ), criminalizing abortion.
The last point shows that he is not for individual freedoms, but an authoritarian who want to impose his view on the body and life of women.
1
-
1
-
1