Slow change = conservatism
Fast change = liberalism
Some of us see rapid change as dangerous & fanciful. Societies change, for the better, gradually. Liberals love to think that if they just got in power and made all the big changes that things would get better. Marxism was the exemplar of this type of thinking. It turned out very, very poorly for “the people.” Conservatives, then, distrust government power.
(Except when they elect a demagogue with dictatorial inclinations…ahem)
Again, if you can point to that passage referring to charity you would had something… You got bupkis.
At most it is talking about, for example, a poor man seeing an escaped donkey running around. He should return it to the rich owner, regardless if the poor needs it more. The reverse is also the case, a rich person can not then subvert the law by telling the judge how he saved him in the past battles and therefore the judge should look the other way when the rich guy takes the donkey from the poor man.
Clearly the bible does point elsewhere about the times when charity is the subject.
Oh, and God can crush you like a grape if you forget that… 
GIGOBuster:
There is plenty in the Bible about charity. Being charitable is a wonderful thing, and as you pointed out, the Bible commands it in numberous places. That has nothing to do with the correctness of taking sides in a dispute based on who is needier rather than who is correct.
“At most”? Not even remotely. The verse is very clearly talking about a judge not perverting justice to favor the poor in a dispute.
Nowhere do I say that I don’t agree with this.
And even in a modern setting a judge will tell you that talking about charity in this case is kinda silly. And even more if it is being taken as grounds to deny charity in many other settings or situations.
This BTW reminded me of what a teacher told me once when growing up in the old country. He described how when he was a young lawyer he helped a poor guy to get out of prison. IIRC the situation was that in a small village a rich owner, in public, got tired or an old and seemingly lame horse. And many people saw the rich guy removing the saddle and all other items and just let it be. He abandoned it and left it to anyone that wanted to turn it to glue or to eat it, he did not care.
At first no one was interested as the horse really looked as it was going to die. A poor man got pity on the abandoned beast and somehow he managed to get the beast to better health and up to the point that it managed to carry some light fare so the poor guy decided to use it for the rest of the time the beast had in this earth.
Well, one day the rich man rode into the town and recognized the horse, and seeing that it was not so lame he became upset that such a poor guy had a horse, so he demanded the horse back. But many people did support the poor man and reminded the rich guy that he had really thrown the horse away, so it belonged now to the poor guy.
But this was not the USA, the rich guy met with his buddies at the police station and with lies told his friends that his horse was stolen and he knew who did it. And regardless of the protests coming from friends and family the poor guy ended in jail for months.
Took awhile but the young lawyer finally pleaded with a judge and with witnesses he managed to get the man free. With no horse, of course.
Now then, that was justice, of sorts. But the outcome was not influenced at all by the judge being charitable, only that the evidence and testimony told him that the poor man should be released, no charity was involved then or there.
Now comes the charity part: IIRC the lawyer actually took the case pro bono. And also later when the poor man got some help from the lawyer and his friends and family after his release to help him get back on track. Of course the rich guy was not bothered at all by the justice or the police. Just one of many reasons why I eventually became a bit of an agnostic in my later years.
GIGOBuster:
So, who said anything about denying charity? The question in the OP was about why liberalism is a bad thing. I brought up certain political matters which tend to, in the eyes of many Americans, put liberals in a bad light, by instinctively taking the underdog’s side in a dispute where said underdog is not necessarily correct. In response to that, rat avatar asked how this accords, in the eyes of conservative Christians, with Biblical verses that I assume speak of supporting the downtrodden or the like. My response is that the Bible (at least the Old Testament) also says that when there’s a dispute, one can’t let one’s concern for the poor override the fact that the rich man might actually be correct in the dispute.
In no way does the above exchange indicate anything about denying charity, nor did I say anything bad about liberals’ support for such overall charitable endeavors as welfare or universal health care or the like. Maybe some others take issue with liberals/liberalism about the socialistic aspects of this, but that was not what I was saying at all.
One thing that might help is if a government program doesn’t succeed, to stop coming up with ad hoc hypotheses for why it didn’t work but would work if only there was more funding, Republicans never held power anywhere, etc.
In the real world, money is finite and power changes hands. If a program can’t work unless those two fundamental laws of reality don’t exist, then the program can’t work.
If liberals made a point of killing programs that are ineffective, rather than keeping them alive as zombie programs or shoveling more money at them, that would improve their credibility on such issues. Instead, they only want to go after programs they didn’t like in the first place. Which is fine, but doesn’t really establish that you care about taxpayers.
[snip]
Sorry, but right there the effort was to make those “square peg” passages fit the “round holes” about charity. Why then mentioning those passages in the context of rat avatar asking about how charity should be seen among Christians? No, clearly trying to respond to rat avatar with those passages that do deal with justice issues are not much applicable with charity when even in Leviticus the passages about charity make it clear how important it is. So using the passages about how a judge should enforce justice (with no preference to anyone*) to counter the ones about charity, is very underwhelming when they are not much applicable as much as you want to.
I disagree, this is a real thing that the doesn’t get picked up in the media outlets. It’s not a million man march, but it is bullying, and depending on the person, i would quantify as assault. When an invited speaker to a college campus is forced to cancel because of pressure/protest from so called SJWs (i.e. what I call liberal outrage for daring to think differently), then I have a problem with that. My alma mater even put out a letter to the class of 2020 that there will be no safe spaces or trigger warnings. To disparage other ideas, in a place where ideas are to be explored and researched, is at best a disservice and more of an authoritarian knee-jerk to freedom.
What’s the alternative? Not allowing protests? Protesting peacefully isn’t bullying – it’s making voices heard. It’s not forcing anyone to do anything.
Actually I think in the long run liberalism has been slowly winning.
Think about issues of gender, race, and homosexuality. Liberals have won on all fronts. Women have the right to vote and work wherever they want. Their is no legal school segregation. Gays can marry.
Maybe the problem comes when they try to grab for too much, too fast?
It’s not just protesting – simple protesting/demonstrations – I don’t have a problem with. It’s the actual interfering with the discussion, it’s the death threats, the vandalism, the actual threat of violence (as you recall, I specifically opined assault) that I have an issue with. To be fair, I have issues with either side being violent, but my response was to SJWs being a real thing.
What does “SJWs being a real thing” mean? Fighting for social justice sounds like a compliment, not an insult.
Violence (including threats and vandalism) is bad. But very, very few protesters engage in or advocate for violence. Most of the instances of speakers withdrawing that I’ve seen has been voluntary, or the university deciding to rescind the invitation to the speaker. Peaceful protests can motivate such actions.
Look up “SJW Cringe” and see how many of them act.
Heck, it makes me want to vote conservative just to piss them off.
I know there are assholes and silly people in every political party/liberal/conservative/etc., but they’re generally a minority. Why focus on this tiny portion of people? The Dope has tons of liberals… and very, very few of us behave similarly to these sorts of caricatures. I think the real world is similar – most liberals aren’t caricatures.
Still don’t get how SJW is an insult in any way whatsoever. It seems like something I’d be proud to be.
It’s become an insult because of its excesses. Too many things are called racist that aren’t, too many things are called sexist that aren’t. And too many things are alleged to be offensive that aren’t, often on behalf of people who aren’t even offended themselves. “Recreational offense” would be a good term for a lot of this.
SJWs, and indeed liberals themselves to a large degree, have not the slightest doubt of their standing to declare what words, thoughts and actions are wrong, and they brook no dissent. Such behavior is dictatorial, arrogant and presumptive, and more often than not a ridiculous exaggeration or just plain wrong.
Part of the problem of course is that in liberal quarters ‘offense’ itself has become equal to major crime. It’s as if people are born with absolutely no coping ability whatsoever and must be protected at all costs from the shattering experience of being offended by something.
A lot of liberalism, IME, consists of things that either
or
Another flaw of liberalism, IMHO, is in what might be called Joker Syndrome: In The Dark Knight, Alfred the butler explains to Batman that “some men just want to watch the world burn.” IME, liberals are often not as willing as conservatives to acknowledge that such people exist - that some people are simply motivated by sadism and can’t be rehabilitated by human means, or bargained with, or negotiated with, or reasoned with, or bribed, or talked with or pleaded out of their behavior, as the movie states. Now I do think that conservatives sometimes are *too *quick to write off people as hopeless and non-rehabilitable (I generally favor rehabilitation when possible,) but, at the same time, to believe that Joker-type people can be dealt with by those aforementioned means, when they are not, is dangerous.
Plenty of bad-connotation things have technically-good-sounding names.
“Men’s Rights Activist” - who could be opposed to “men’s rights?”
9/11 Truthers - who could oppose the “truth?”
Do you really not know what a SJW is? And, here we come full circle to the OP. This is the article from news.com where I first heard of the term SJW, and I happened to be in Australia at the time. This article from the the Observer is pretty much on point on how I feel about SJWs and the liberal idea of political correctness. I disagree that what’s happening at universities are polite voluntary withdrawals and are more of a reaction to threats of violence. These actions are more akin to totalitarianism and an affront to actual freedom and liberty for which one normally think a SJW would stand for.