benhocking's Journal: Conservatives and "teaching a man to fish"

Here's a "conservative" sound bite that I think makes a lot of sense:

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life.

Unfortunately, many conservatives (not all, and maybe not even most) use this sound bite as an excuse to do nothing. The reasoning goes something like this: "I shouldn't give him a 'fish' because I should 'teach him to fish', but I don't have time to 'teach him to fish', so I'll do nothing instead."

So, going along with my "true conversative" idea from my last post, here's my "true conservative" sound bite replacement:

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life. However, if you don't have time to teach a man to fish, it's better that he eats for a day than he starves to death before you can teach him to fish.

Real 'Conservative' response

[Blitzenn]

The Bush conservatism teachs the saying in a slightly different way. It goes as follows;

"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life, feed the man to the fishes and you don't have to feed or teach him."

It might sound funny, but we used to be a country of people who believed that; "When all you have are lemons, make lemonade" Now we are a country that goes by the saying (at least by our actions) "When all you have are lemons, kill all of the lemons and burn the tree

Work with me here!

[benhocking]

I'm trying to convince knee-jerk conservatives to be nicer, not meaner! I do think yours is funnier, however.

Moo

[Chacham]

1. Actually, give him a fish for a day, and he will learn to rely on you for fish.

2. Teach him to fish, and he will rely on you when he loses his job.

3. Teach him nothing, and he'll learn to fend for himself.

Ideally, 3 is the answer, however, it is a harsh world. But 2 is too true, so the answer is somewhere between 3 and 2.

2 is for those who have shown that they are willing to do 3, but cannot, due to age, illness, or cost.

1. is only for the incapacitated.

Re:Moo

[Blitzenn]

I believe that your synopsis is correct, however, I think that assuming all people will take advantage of you (and therefore should not do anything) is giving far to many people the short stick. If we all go with the stance that "We won't teach them because they will only become our baggage in the future", then everyone pays the price for so many being uneducated. What about the student who will learn and take off on his or her own? Certainly there will be a high percentage of those who will cling to the

Re:Moo

[Chacham]

I believe that your synopsis is correct, however, I think that assuming all people will take advantage of you (and therefore should not do anything) is giving far to many people the short stick. If we all go with the stance that "We won't teach them because they will only become our baggage in the future", then everyone pays the price for so many being uneducated. What about the student who will learn and take off on his or her own?

True. But there are two approaches. One is to think the main position is to