Ah, that makes sense. Thanks!

The real reason is that conservative ideology dictates that society will have winners and losers who end up in the correct spot in the heirarchy if society doesn’t interfere with the natural sorting.

So it follows that homeless people don’t deserve a “handout” or a leg-up just because they squandered their opportunities.

Leftists think that an ideology follows from a moral interrogation of the world as it should be, whereas reactionaries think the highest good is done by ensuring that people are in their correct spot in the heirarchy in relation to others; since some people are inevitably going to be homeless, there isn’t much to be done about it and the leftists complaining about it are just virtue signaling to get votes.

Their justification is irrelevant once you realize the actual ideological reasoning.

Edit: I’m confused by the downvotes. Anyone want to tell me how I’m wrong? This isn’t my ideology, but I think it’s useful to understand your opposition on more than a cartoon-villain level, especially since they are so effective at selling their ideas to low-information voters.

I’ve been promoted and the company still had to post the job publicly for a couple weeks to satisfy internal protocol. It’s insanity.

Ok, maybe if you’re dying you can get the healthcare treatment that you need.

If you can find a doctor/hospital who will open themselves up to litigation and if you can get there. But you’d better be on the cusp of death!

Are we not merciful?!?

You’re a satirical genius! Can I have your autograph? I’ve never seen such a good impression of a rabid Muskrat before.

I’d love to see your material on sovereign citizens next; their delusions are even more fun IMO.

Sure, but Jesus would have smacked the shit out of Paul, too. It’s kind of been that way since the beginning of the religion.

I’m confused about what part is against her religion:

• calling kids by their name?
• not being a bigot?
• not making everything about her?

Regardless, we know whose religious rights will be protected by the SCOTUS most high: the one who is imposing her ignorant worldview upon a captive audience. Funny how believing in magic gets you extra rights in this country.

I always love how the Catholic Church gets to have it both ways: they simultaneously are bound by centuries of traditions that they revere, but are also not to held accountable for the damage that they’ve done merely a decade ago.

Have they apologized for trying to force their morally backwards religion on people? Have they funded lobbies to expand LGBTQ rights to reverse some of the damage they’ve done historically?

Do you think that the Cardinals who run the diaces who donated thone millions of dollars have reformed their ideas regarding same-sex marriage?

All the Catholic Church has done is to dress up their bigotry as inclusion, and credulous news agencies do their PR for them about how much the Catholic Church has changed to be more inclusive.

So I ask you, if you think they’ve changed: what exactly have they changed? They still lobby the government to impose their religion on the rest of us, they still believe that “acting on” gay urges is evil and weak, and they are still hiding child predators. The Catholic Church is an enormous institution, and merely replacing the CEO doesn’t mean that every franchise is magically aligned with his new vision.

So how is pointing out their actual values (a particularly ironic turn of phrase) “bad faith?”

They’ve shown their contempt for sexual minorities for centuries; I think we should believe them.