We are finally at the last installment of the Make Fake Ron Howard Eat His Words Ethics Alarms Challenge, and it is the longest and most thorough of all. Again,I would be impressed greatly if one of our progressive-minded readers would rise in “Ron’s” defense, but “his” facile, talking-point besotted declaration of liberal pride is as indefensible as much as it is pandering to the Left’s fondest delusions—as the four posts including this one demonstrate. Fake Ron’s manifesto is here; rebuttal #1 is here, #2 is here, and #3 is here.

Now you have #4, a thorough fisking by John Paul, masterfully done.

Take that, Fake Ron!

***

I’m a liberal, but that doesn’t mean what a lot of you apparently think it does.

Good for you? But I’m willing to bet 95% of the time, I know exactly what it means. Studies (I can cite them if you want) often show I know you a lot better than you know me. The big problem with a statement like yours is that your views are often highlighted and celebrated, while republican views are not.

Because quite frankly, I’m getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for.

The same, but see point one. If you don’t like this characterization, maybe you should do a better job of reigning your side in. If people actually cared about things, they should spend more time looking inward than outward.

 Spoiler alert: not every liberal is the same, though the majority of liberals I know think along roughly these same lines:

True. No one is the same. But giving where this is going, I’m having a hard time not seeing you about to do what you accuse us of doing.

I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. PERIOD.

Great in theory….You do know republicans do this? But that really isn’t the issue. The issue is how it should be done. The biggest question: Who’s gonna pay for it?

I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that’s interpreted as “I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all.”

No, its not. As far as I know, never in human history has it been. Since you’re claiming it is, the burden of proof is on you. You can’t just make a statement. Also PERIOD? What are you five?

“I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all.” This is not the case. I’m fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it’s impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes “let people die because they can’t afford healthcare” a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I’m not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.

Strawman. Has any republican ever said this? There was a lot of (justified) critiques of the ACA (not to mention subterfuge). Also, if you don’t know better critiques of cheaper healthcare, you’re not listening to them. Additionally, everyone has access to it. You can walk into any ER and get anywhere in the country, but that’s not what you’re talking about, is it? I bet you’re also talking about Hormone therapy and abortion. But I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Tell me how you would get healthcare cost down without making someone do their work for cheaper/free. This is going to be a problem with one of your later arguments.

I believe education should be affordable. It doesn’t necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I’m mystified as to why it can’t work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.

Setting aside the big problem with a significant number of colleges, the short answer: it can be. Trade schools, community colleges, military, are alternative methods to higher education that don’t break the bank. I’m willing to bet 999/1000 an employer doesn’t care where you went to college, only if you can do the job. I know one of Charlie Kirk’s talking point was almost 50% of people working aren’t in a field they got their degree in (I’ll admit, I don’t know if this is true). Still, this is you’re talking point. I also understand (Maybe I’m doing exactly what you accuse me of doing earlier) that colleges are one of liberals sacred institutions. If you think there is a problem, maybe, as I suggested earlier, you look inward towards a solution instead of asking for the government to step in and fix it.

I don’t believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don’t want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can’t afford to go to the doctor.

Well, it would be a rather stupid thing to admit (but given the wake of Kirk, nothing surprises me), but that’s not really what conservatives are saying. I guess maybe you are doing some of that which you accuse them of doing. The issue is it’s happening. There are people who (proudly) freeload off the government and even tell others how to do so.

Also, wealth is not a zero-sum game. If it were, we would have hit a wall decades ago. A person is no more obligated (morally or otherwise) to be concerned with others who have nothing to do with them. As a Christian, I would add: By what moral authority do you appeal to?

Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist.

If it walks like a duck….

I don’t throw around “I’m willing to pay higher taxes” lightly. If I’m suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it’s because I’m fine with paying my share as long as it’s actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare.

I would also say, this isn’t how governments work. You don’t get to pick and choose taxes. Those same taxes you pay also go to pay for things I’m willing to bet you don’t want to have them pay for.

I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion-dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn’t have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live.

I believe if a person wants to work for a dollar and two people come to that arrangement, then that’s between them. My belief is more grounded in reality. I’ll quote Jesus here (See if I can appeal to your morality) which was not the point of his lesson, but seems to fit nicely here:

And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?

All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. Just don’t force it on me or mine.

You do realize, given that we are only on point six, how hypocritical this is? This is exactly what you are doing.

I don’t believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you.

They do (granted, it wasn’t always this way). If we were just talking about the LGB this wouldn’t even be an issue now. But you know darn well the legal, moral, and ethical implications of what the T is doing to the movement, world, and rule of law, so let’s not pretend it is what it isn’t.

I don’t believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN’T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they’re supposed to be abusing, and if they’re “stealing” your job it’s because your employer is hiring illegally). I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc).

So you’re telling me they aren’t being given food stamps, free medical access, housing benefits, increasing the crime rate (yeah, I know what you’re going to say here…)? Even by coming here illegally, they are breaking the law. And all these things you want for everybody? In a place with finite resources, increasing cost, and longer wait times, what do you think bring in millions of extra people are year are going to do to those things?

 Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.

Well there is a third option: Sunshine. Something both government and companies seem to hate.

11-12. Res Ipsa Loquitur. You have revealed exactly what you are: illogical. There is no point in moving forward with anyone who makes this argument. Whatever you have to say, I no longer want to listen, because by making this argument, you have said you won’t listen (though you have already proved that by your responses) to anything bordering on the rational. What’s the point of continuing after this?

Here’s a challenge to Ethics Alarms readers: debunk this virtue-signaling orgy my Facebook friends are so fond of, and I’ll publish your vivisections in one grand post to express my gratitude for saving me the trouble.

This is why no one likes Ethicists, Jack (Jk.) Fine, fine, I’ll continue.

I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is the enforcement of present laws and enacting new, common sense gun regulations. Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine.

Even if I believe you’re not coming after guns (which I don’t) define “Common Sense” or any law that would have stopped most gun (I want to say violence here, but I don’t have data at this point) shootings that happen in our country.

I believe in so-called political correctness. 

I cringed reading this. Who writes something like this with a straight face.

 I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you’re using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person?

I hate being called John, and I correct people when they do. In this way, I agree. But the issue rarely stems from a name (I’m almost positive you know that). The issue is bending reality, which stretches into the whole problem of having transgender people in our society (see earlier point). Hurt is a two-way street. Men hurt women by playing in their safe spaces. Also, it is not hurt to correct someone nor not allow them accesss to somewhere they shouldn’t be.

 I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil.

You could have just stopped here.

Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.

Again, trying to tell someone else what to do. It’s their money. You have no right to it. I would say the same thing about you. I have no right to your money.

I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be?

Are we really doing the wage gap again? It’s been 17 years since that stupid study came out. If there is something (Legally) that a woman can’t do that a man can, then fix it. But besides the fact that its been debunked multiple times, had nothing to do with an actual gap in pay, I’m willing to bet you don’t believe this statement (see you’re own vague posting on the transgender movement).

I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I’m a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn’t mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don’t believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.”

Then do it. No one is stopping you. But you’re not advocating for any of that. You are (mostly) advocating for a vague increase in taxes and government overreach. You literally wrote, “I don’t believe in government overreach” then proceeded to do nothing but advocate for government overreach. What you really could have said and saved all of us the trouble was: “Dear Republicians. I’m a Liberal. I don’t think you understand us. Just be clear, please govern me harder.”

Message received.