Which is a very nice strawman
> if you accept human dignity as an inalienable right (one of the tenets of humanism) then you have already created an ethics in which you either care or are immmoral
Nice way in making people guilty and only seeing black and white. You are as intolerant as ISIS, you're just not killing people for it
> a) that the world has winners and losers,b)with the winners having the right to treat the losers poorly,c)that you are a winner and always will be
Again, you see the world in pure black and white.
> That to me is delusional and suboptimal
Yes, see the above point
I'm curious as to what is a strawman in that statement? You are arguing charity should be optional, he said "not being charitable". Where in that sentence is he misrepresenting the position he is claiming is immoral and shortsighted? Is the word solidaric that much of a sticking point?
I've found quite a few arguments against allowing the influx of migrants from the middle east to continue unabated to be at the very least reasonable (I have family in Greece that are seeing it first hand), but none of them start and end with "black and white", with the middle filled with comparisons to ISIS.
If you have something to say about the actual issue, I'd love to hear it.
I don't see your point. Maybe not exactly a strawman, but certainly a false dichotomy
I also believe that those who think not being charitable is immoral and shortsighted should be actually helping instead of commenting on news items
Going on your second question, there are good arguments on why not being charitable, solidaric, or however you want to call it is immoral and shortsighted.
The strongest for me are 1) if you accept human dignity as an inalienable right (one of the tenets of humanism) then you have already created an ethics in which you either care or are immmoral 2) more pragmatically, by not being charitable and solidarity, you imply a) that the world has winners and losers,b)with the winners having the right to treat the losers poorly,c)that you are a winner and always will be. That to me is delusional and suboptimal, since at any point a blood clot could render you helpless.