Bleeding-heart liberal do-gooders

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by towny

/phtannng

Darn, missed, you ducked too quick

I don't know that there's a necessary connection between 'born again Christian' and 'bleeding-heart liberal' - a lot of the liberal types I know are fervent atheists who think the world would be a better place without religion.

I suppose I tend to link do-gooders with religion, because I suppose in general terms I percieve religious people as mild natured, caring, honest and giving to others.

I think those qualities generally tend to steer them towards seeing the good side of people and ignoring the bad side.

(Just my views in the open, no argument intended)

Originally Posted by Escapee

I suppose I tend to link do-gooders with religion, because I suppose in general terms I percieve religious people as mild natured, caring, honest and giving to others.

I think those qualities generally tend to steer them towards seeing the good side of people and ignoring the bad side.

(Just my views in the open, no argument intended)

No argument given

As a Christian who is not a bleeding heart liberal, I want to do the best I can for people, but I have no issues with the Christian doctrine of original sin (which essentially is fundamental separation from God and an inability to live a holy life, not sex as some think). I am quite happy to think that a lot of people are just out for what they can get and think this country is a soft touch on asylum.

But I don't intend this thread to become an argument about religion or asylum - the point I wanted to get at was the motivations of those labelled bleeding-hearts and do-gooders, not their pet topics per se.

[Ramrod]

I love the way the poll is going

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by towny

No argument given

As a Christian who is not a bleeding heart liberal, I want to do the best I can for people, but I have no issues with the Christian doctrine of original sin (which essentially is fundamental separation from God and an inability to live a holy life, not sex as some think). I am quite happy to think that a lot of people are just out for what they can get and think this country is a soft touch on asylum.

But I don't intend this thread to become an argument about religion or asylum - the point I wanted to get at was the motivations of those labelled bleeding-hearts and do-gooders, not their pet topics per se.

Perhaps the more basic wider reason could be that people in this country always champion the underdog or look for a loser to support.

It certainly happens in sport etc, Frank Bruno, Eddie the Eagle, Tim Henman etc etc.

I guess these people just latch onto current events.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I love the way the poll is going

The whole thing could be pretty much tailor made for Defiant, pity he got himself banned again so quickly.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by towny

The whole thing could be pretty much tailor made for Defiant, pity he got himself banned again so quickly.

He's banned?! What did he do?

[Nemesis]

He was a naughty boy .... so behave yerself

Originally Posted by Ramrod

He's banned?! What did he do?

<OT>
Don't know exactly, but this post prolly had something to do with it, it was almost his last.
</OT>

Doesn't look like the Guardian's a very popular newspaper around here though

[Matth]

I'm all for do-gooders, if they champion the right people in the right place with their own money ... how many "outreach co-ordinators" do we need, and do they actually reach anyone after being recruited through the pages of the Guardian?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Nemesis

He was a naughty boy .... so behave yerself

its just a thing that right wing groups say to attack liberals the BNP often uses that prase it makes them seem llike they cannnot be tough and such

Surely every issue should be approached on it's merits not on political ideology This means I can't vote in the poll because it doesn't cover what I think and feel.



Incog.

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Surely every issue should be approached on it's merits not on political ideology This means I can't vote in the poll because it doesn't cover what I think and feel.



Incog.

Yes, I agree arguments should be settled on the relevant issues in each case but if you have a meta-narrative through which you understand the world (and all of us do, of one kind or another), then that meta-narrative becomes one of the 'merits' upon which you decide each issue. The ability to debate in a 'moral vacuum' is useful in a forum like this but when you're in the real world, you have to decide on issues based on how you believe those issues fit into the world as you see it. To do it any other way you would have to be a robot, IMHO.

That aside, the poll doesn't ask how moral/political issues should be decided - it asks, in so many words, whether or not there exists a 'class' of person as a 'bleeding-heart, liberal do-gooder' who reads the Guardian, is determined only to see the 'nice' in other people and finds tough decisions impossible to take, or whether this person doesn't exist at all and is merely a myth invented by the conservative Press as a handy insult for anybody who disagrees with their point of view.

To that extent, you ought to be able to participate in the Poll and say you think yes, they exist, no they don't ... or you don't know/care.

Well thinking about it on it's merits means that I'd have to really know anyone like that and I don't.I do know people who read the Guardian but they aren't always incessant do gooders all the time.They are just people most of the time who have particular 'pet' hates from time to time but the rest of the time they are quite sensible down to earth folk who do judge most issues on their merits.

I think that there are however a group known as SUN readers who believe EVERY word that toilet paper produces.However not EVERY SUN reader fits into this catergory.

Sorry towny I still can't vote.

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Well thinking about it on it's merits means that I'd have to really know anyone like that and I don't.I do know people who read the Guardian but they aren't always incessant do gooders all the time.They are just people most of the time who have particular 'pet' hates from time to time but the rest of the time they are quite sensible down to earth folk who do judge most issues on their merits.

I think that there are however a group known as SUN readers who believe EVERY word that toilet paper produces.However not EVERY SUN reader fits into this catergory.

Sorry towny I still can't vote.

Sounds to me like you ought to vote 'Are an invention of the right wing Press'.