Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

There is a quote attributed to Teddy Roosevelt “No one cares how much you know, until they know how much you care”

This has been on my mind a lot for the past few months. I see it as part of the problem people have in not hearing what I am saying. But I this problem a lot for the past year or so since Trump was nominated. For instance, people claiming to be oh so offended by the coarse and vulgar talk from Donald Trump but then engage in the same coarse talk or ignore it from the like of others they happen to like or agree with politically. I sense that they really don't care so I don't care what facts they trot out at that point. Or they say they concerned about a theoretical threat to this or that protected group but then turn around and ignore existential threats to that group from say immigrants.

So goes the supposed hatred of moralizing by many about how they can't stand the religious/conservatives pushing their viewpoints on Biblical mores such as sexual sins. And how they love to find hypocrisy and lapses of morality to show that really the religious/conservatives are all full of crap. And yet if moralizing and hypocrisy were really such a great turn off then why was a blind eye turned for decades and decades about how the Left/Democrats/Hollywood treated young women and men as sexual objects. Supposedly religious/conservatives are hard hearted, mean, greedy folks who don't care about the suffering of others WHILE the Left/Democrats/Hollywood is all about the weak and downtrodden and vulnerable. It was always a lie and everyone knew it, yet the lie and narrative keeps being repeated.

So sure Swaggart, Roy Moore, and O'Reilly are/were moralizing hypocritical creeps. But really the reason they were hated had nothing to do with outright hatred of moralizing hypocrites because many are still making excuses for Franken and Conyers and the entirety of the Left in the case of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

So I don't care how many facts a person has until I know they actually care about the supposed flaw they complaining about.

In the end it has to do with being consistent and selective/convenient compartmentalizing.

KLP,
I think the point that Roosevelt was trying to make is that people don't care what you know until they know you care about THEM. Not about how much you care about an issue. Maybe you're changing his meaning on purpose, to make a point.

I tend to agree with Moogy about teddy's qoute. However, this post of yours tells me a whole lot more about you and your psychology than anything else. I undestand now why it always seemed you were never moved by any arguments against your position. You just think the person you are in a disagreement with is really just blowing smoke and really doesn't care. I can understand that. I and am sure others see this all of the time,especially at work, and it does get rather numbing. Why waste your time with it when you don't have too--are not a captive audience like at work. For a long time I thought you were someone suffering some form of mental disability affecting your ability to think and reason and reflect. Now that I know why it appears you fail to do so really isn't that you really fail to do so and the real reason why I feel a lot better about you for your sake.

Moogy, I see your point as a distinction without a difference. If a person doesn't genuinely care about "X" then why listen to them expound about "X".
For instance there is a book out now about the Making of Trump and it is about dirty deals and money influence and the mob. All is documented and footnoted...it is all fact or so the author claims. But the writer cares not on wit about dirty deals, money, and mob stuff when it comes to other politicians. So I know this guy really doesn't have a problem with dirty stuff or else he would have been going after it regardless of the politician...he is in it at best to just make money, at worst as a political hack to add to the chaos in the country (if that is even possible)

And trust me BH, it is no mental defect to not be moved by inconsistent arguments no matter how many time you or other repeat them. But yes, I understand my ability to detect and resist such nonsense is baffling to others.

KLP wrote:Moogy, I see your point as a distinction without a difference. If a person doesn't genuinely care about "X" then why listen to them expound about "X".
For instance there is a book out now about the Making of Trump and it is about dirty deals and money influence and the mob. All is documented and footnoted...it is all fact or so the author claims. But the writer cares not on wit about dirty deals, money, and mob stuff when it comes to other politicians. So I know this guy really doesn't have a problem with dirty stuff or else he would have been going after it regardless of the politician...he is in it at best to just make money, at worst as a political hack to add to the chaos in the country (if that is even possible)

And trust me BH, it is no mental defect to not be moved by inconsistent arguments no matter how many time you or other repeat them. But yes, I understand my ability to detect and resist such nonsense is baffling to others.

LIKE

Hi.

One more thing and I'll shut up about it. I was not trying to be disrespectful or condenscending to KLP. I think he knows that, I just just want others to know it. I am glad there is nothing wrong with KLP.

KLP wrote:Moogy, I see your point as a distinction without a difference. If a person doesn't genuinely care about "X" then why listen to them expound about "X".

I think you missed my point, KLP. If someone cares about ME, really cares, like close friends and some family members, I am more likely to listen to them expounding about "X". Even if I wouldn't listen for a minute to some stranger who just wants to win an argument on Facebook.
So I am more likely to listen to you, KLP, than to someone I just met. Because I know that you really care about people, and not just about winning arguments. Although I think you like winning arguments, too.

Moogy wrote:

KLP wrote:Moogy, I see your point as a distinction without a difference. If a person doesn't genuinely care about "X" then why listen to them expound about "X".

I think you missed my point, KLP. If someone cares about ME, really cares, like close friends and some family members, I am more likely to listen to them expounding about "X". Even if I wouldn't listen for a minute to some stranger who just wants to win an argument on Facebook.
So I am more likely to listen to you, KLP, than to someone I just met. Because I know that you really care about people, and not just about winning arguments. Although I think you like winning arguments, too.

It seems you are just stating the corollary...or perhaps I was starting the corollary to clarify why I thought it was a valid application of the original saying (which you seem to take issue with). But yes I started with the original quote which is what you are restating it seems. Yes, I get it. In the original form or application it might have been strictly this personal application you are describing...I am saying the statement holds true even in the broader and more anonymous nature of communications in today's world. Teddy Roosevelt didn't have the internetz.

OK

KLP, I love you.* I would even give you a hug if we ever met in real life.









*In a Allah and Prophet kinda way.