My model is that it's: "we want to help everyone who is suffering" but also: "the only real suffering is the suffering according to our definitions". Or more precisely: "the suffering according to our definitions influences millions of people, and anything you said (assuming you are not lying, which is kinda dubious, considering you are not one of us) is merely one specific weird exception, which might be an interesting footnote in an academic debate, but... sorry, limited resources". I understand that with given model of reality, this is the right thing to do. But unfortunately, the model seems to suffer horribly from double-counting the evidence for it and treating everything else (including the whole science, if necessary) as an enemy soldier. A galaxy-sized affective death spiral. -- On the other hand, this is my impression mostly from the internet debates, and the internet debates usually show the darker side of humanity, in any direction, because the evaporative cooling is so much easier there. (Off-topic: Heh, I feel I'm linking Sequences better than a Jehovah's Witness could quote the Bible. If anyone gets a cultish vibe from this, let me note that I am translating the whole thing these days, and I have just finished the "Politics is the Mindkiller" part, so it's all fresh in my memory.)

I don't think he's surprised to hear that claim. How would you distinguish the hypotheses? Perhaps you should hold the question in mind for a week as you think as a liberal and listen to liberals.