Originally posted by Darth Sexy
While I do favor an increase in taxes for the higher classes, I don't agree with increasing programs for the less privileged, such as welfare. I think this breeds laziness in the lower classes and just adds to the program. I'm all for a certain reform of welfare and government assisted programs, but adding more will increase the abuse.
I think we're clearly divided on this issue. You see, I believe the majority of less privileged individuals aren't there as a matter of choice- they're trapped in that class, and are unable to get suitable jobs due to multiple reasons. At this point, I think the government has a fundamental responsibility to let every single citizen lead a decent life; it doesn't have to be prestigious, but at least live-able.
I don't think these people abuse the system. On the contrary- these people are incapable of surviving without the system's assistance. This is not a matter of personal responsibility. Poor people don't choose to be poor; the fact that they're trapped in that class is not a matter of personal choice. For example, I don't think a single mother who lacks a proper education and has to stay home during a large portion of the day in order to raise her infants chooses to remain poor. In order to assist these kinds of people, the minimum wage must be increased and the rich must receive increased taxation. I believe this is absolutely fair.
Also, even welfare programs and such don't allow people to live the way they want to exclusively via governmental support. It's sufficient to survive, sure, but you'll find extremely few people who use it as their only source of income. Therefore, it is a logical assumption that people will still want to find decent employment. Hell, if people are pulled out of the hellhole they are forced to endure, the desperation that occurs as a result of poverty is almost eliminated. This, by far, reduces the possibility of these people indulging in illegal activities to get enough money. Other potential ramifications is the lessening of drug addictions (because drugs can be used as a method of escapism from a difficult existence).
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I think we're clearly divided on this issue. You see, I believe the majority of less privileged individuals aren't there as a matter of choice- they're trapped in that class, and are unable to get suitable jobs due to multiple reasons. At this point, I think the government has a fundamental responsibility to let every single citizen lead a decent life; it doesn't have to be prestigious, but at least live-able.
I don't think these people abuse the system. On the contrary- these people are incapable of surviving without the system's assistance. This is not a matter of personal responsibility. Poor people don't choose to be poor; the fact that they're trapped in that class is not a matter of personal choice. For example, I don't think a single mother who lacks a proper education and has to stay home during a large portion of the day in order to raise her infants chooses to remain poor. In order to assist these kinds of people, the minimum wage must be increased and the rich must receive increased taxation. I believe this is absolutely fair.
Also, even welfare programs and such don't allow people to live the way they want to exclusively via governmental support. It's sufficient to survive, sure, but you'll find extremely few people who use it as their only source of income. Therefore, it is a logical assumption that people will still want to find decent employment. Hell, if people are pulled out of the hellhole they are forced to endure, the desperation that occurs as a result of poverty is almost eliminated. This, by far, reduces the possibility of these people indulging in illegal activities to get enough money. Other potential ramifications is the lessening of drug addictions (because drugs can be used as a method of escapism from a difficult existence).
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
See, I don't know where you think the government has a responsibility to anyone. You blame society and the government on poverty. I blame the individuals. This is one of the fundamental issues between liberalism and conservatism. While I will acknowledge that it is out of the control of some people, I believe most are lazy and unmotivated, and abuse things like welfare. You would love to blame anybody but the individual. I suppose you think people are inherently good too huh?
So the poor people (like the single mother I gave in my example) are utterly to blame for living in unlivable conditions? I suppose the Palestinians who are forced to live in run-down villages down here in Israel without access to suitable education and welfare (that every middle-class Israeli has access to) are to blame for their predicament, too... right?
The answer is no. I suppose certain people have only themselves to blame for being in a difficult financial situations (i.e, compulsive gamblers), but it is largely the fault of an unfair society, misfortune, and poor education. These things lead to desperation. Desperation leads to violence, crime, drug abuse, etc. It does not give motive to being a functioning member of society.
In short, tell that single mother who can barely hold a job, even on a minimum wage, that she is at her own fault for being in the situation she is in.
Also, I don't believe it is possible to make the generalization that people are fundamentally good or bad. It really depends on the individual's own personality and education more than humanity's faults.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
As someone who has seem the system abused many times, I find it unlikely that you could make this assertion, unless you are deluding yourself into believing people are naturally good and that nobody would abuse a system like this. Poor people don't choose to be poor? Certainly a lot of them don't and they work their ass off. What about the ridiculous number of lazy unmotivated douchebags who have no ambition and live off of the government? Are you going to tell me this group doesn't exist, because they do and in large numbers. I believe in increased taxation for the rich but not to hand out more money to the poor. Doing that breeds corruption of the system.
Excuse me, what exactly is the movie you inhabit? Poor people who live in unlivable conditions choose to stay in these conditions? Do they enjoy it? Do they want to get something out of it? Do you think these people don't desire to lead a decent life? Are the majority of poor people 'unmotivated douchebags'? Dude. I understand it's easy to blame everything on the sufferer, but it does not operate like that.
Also, tell me exactly who is this mythical group of financial parasites who live strictly off the government. Do you know any of them? Are they represented in studies and such? And do you know the government welfare is simply not enough to build an entire life upon?
But let's say they do exist. The government enables every individual, regardless of their personal skillset or motivation, to lead a healthy standard of living. Why does this hurt you? Do you not think every person has a right to lead a decent life and be happy? The thing is, I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
TONS of people survive just on welfare, and those are the same people that DONT look for a job. Stop blaming everything on society and the government and let individuals take responsibility for their own actions.
Single mom again.
Or how about that Latino dude, whose parents are both abusive alcoholics? Their parents were also remarkably similar. You know, he really wanted to do well in school, but the fact is, he received discrimination and discouragement from both his nutty parents and his peers; both for his racial heritage and his financial condition. Eventually, he had to personally finance his family. But he couldn't do it legally. No, no, no, no place could employ him- not for his skillset, not for his potential working hours. And the minimum wage he might be able to earn is not nearly enough. So he has no choice but to revert to drug dealing, in order to help his family survive. Eventually he flunked out of school; a constant dissatisfaction with society, anger at the schoolboard, and a lack of a stimulated motivation/education prevents him from really wanting to go study there. He spends his entire life financing himself and his later families through illegal activities- because he simply couldn't work on a minimum wage. It was far too low, and besides, he was already deep into the world of illegal activities, to the point of being threatened with execution if he 'flunked out' on the business. Eventually, his desire for escapism from his harsh reality ultimately led to a drug addiction.
Clearly he's at fault. The government should not help him whatsoever.
Do you understand the cycle now? Had the government supplied his family welfare, his parents might not have reverted to alcoholism. In fact, there is a possibility they would have been capable of getting an honorable job, especially with the superior education they might have been capable of getting. Then, he would have been raised in a less violent, more peaceful home, which will lead to him wanting to do well in school and eventually succeeding. After graduating, he goes to college. Not even necessarily that. But he now has the skills and the qualifications required for a decent-pay job, which he takes. This later prevents his drug addiction and enables him to raise a family himself, via financing (which is, of course, assisted by the government).
And you know what was done so all that could change? So that these people could have a good life? Some uber rich dude has to pay higher taxes each time he buys a million dollar car.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
So the poor people (like the single mother I gave in my example) are utterly to blame for living in unlivable conditions? I suppose the Palestinians who are forced to live in run-down villages down here in Israel without access to suitable education and welfare (that every middle-class Israeli has access to) are to blame for their predicament, too... right?
The answer is no. I suppose certain people have only themselves to blame for being in a difficult financial situations (i.e, compulsive gamblers), but it is largely the fault of an unfair society, misfortune, and poor education. These things lead to desperation. Desperation leads to violence, crime, drug abuse, etc. It does not give motive to being a functioning member of society.
In short, tell that single mother who can barely hold a job, even on a minimum wage, that she is at her own fault for being in the situation she is in.
Also, I don't believe it is possible to make the generalization that people are fundamentally good or bad. It really depends on the individual's own personality and education more than humanity's faults.
Excuse me, what exactly is the movie you inhabit? Poor people who live in unlivable conditions choose to stay in these conditions? Do they enjoy it? Do they want to get something out of it? Do you think these people don't desire to lead a decent life? Are the majority of poor people 'unmotivated douchebags'? Dude. I understand it's easy to blame everything on the sufferer, but it does not operate like that.
Also, tell me exactly who is this mythical group of financial parasites who live strictly off the government. Do you know any of them? Are they represented in studies and such? And do you know the government welfare is simply not enough to build an entire life upon?
But let's say they do exist. The government enables every individual, regardless of their personal skillset or motivation, to lead a healthy standard of living. Why does this hurt you? Do you not think every person has a right to lead a decent life and be happy? The thing is, I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
Or how about that Latino dude, whose parents are both abusive alcoholics? Their parents were also remarkably similar. You know, he really wanted to do well in school, but the fact is, he received discrimination and discouragement from both his nutty parents and his peers; both for his racial heritage and his financial condition. Eventually, he had to personally finance his family. But he couldn't do it legally. No, no, no, no place could employ him- not for his skillset, not for his potential working hours. And the minimum wage he might be able to earn is not nearly enough. So he has no choice but to revert to drug dealing, in order to help his family survive. Eventually he flunked out of school; a constant dissatisfaction with society, anger at the schoolboard, and a lack of a stimulated motivation/education prevents him from really wanting to go study there. He spends his entire life financing himself and his later families through illegal activities- because he simply couldn't work on a minimum wage. It was far too low, and besides, he was already deep into the world of illegal activities, to the point of being threatened with execution if he 'flunked out' on the business. Eventually, his desire for escapism from his harsh reality ultimately led to a drug addiction.
Clearly he's at fault. The government should not help him whatsoever.
Do you understand the cycle now? Had the government supplied his family welfare, his parents might not have reverted to alcoholism. In fact, there is a possibility they would have been capable of getting an honorable job, especially with the superior education they might have been capable of getting. Then, he would have been raised in a less violent, more peaceful home, which will lead to him wanting to do well in school and eventually succeeding. After graduating, he goes to college. Not even necessarily that. But he now has the skills and the qualifications required for a decent-pay job, which he takes. This later prevents his drug addiction and enables him to raise a family himself, via financing (which is, of course, assisted by the government).
And you know what was done so all that could change? So that these people could have a good life? Some uber rich dude has to pay higher taxes each time he buys a million dollar car.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I'll try your form of reasoning. So the government is at fault for a homeless guy who refuses to find any kind of employment? Or the woman who lives off of welfare, sitting at home doing nothing? See, it goes back and forth. But I forgot. Your skewed views of reality caused you to blame Israel for the agression of the Palestinians, rather than blaming the Palestinians themselves. You enjoy shifting blame because it justifies some kind of weird ideology for you. I find it hilarious when people feel bad for the oppressor, while blaming the oppressed.
I've asked this before and I'm going to ask this again: Are. You. High? A homeless guy does not find a job because he does not want to? He wants to live on the streets, without a shelter and without the ability to live well? Oh, sure, he's just lazy. Or did you perhaps consider the possibility that he lacks the education necessary for a proper job? And that the minimum wage is not nearly enough for him to finance himself? And you tell me my arguments are black and white.
The woman who lives off of welfare? Again: have you thought of the possibility that she, um, can't get a job? And again. If she lives off of welfare, leads a decent life, doesn't harm anybody and manages to achieve a state of happiness... what is the problem with that? Hell, she needs the money to survive. The rich people who get harmed for it don't.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Right, typical. Shift the blame to society, or the government. I'm surprised you haven't blamed Regan yet. I would say only CERTAIN people are not responsible for the problems in their lives and that the MAJORITY can blame themselves. I'll give you a lesson. Poverty doesn't cause crime. Crime causes poverty.
Of course the majority can blame themselves! How awfully simplistic. And now you can substantiate that. You can provide examples of the actual parasites instead of talking about them and bashing them. And you can give suitable examples of how people selectively choose to remain in the lower class.
Crime causes poverty? WTF? Crime is generated by desperation and a necessity for money. This is, in turn, generated by poverty. Poverty causes crime, not the other way around. If there are less poor people in the U.S, there is less motive for crime.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Or blame the government for the majority of the lower class living off of welfare and not contributing to society in any way.
The people who work in textile factories because that's what their skillset allows them to do do their absolute best to contribute to society; but, unfortunately, the wage is not nearly high enough for them to live in a proper way. Therefore, welfare is a necessary supplement for these people. Because every person has a fundamental right to at least lead some sort of living standard, regardless of their abilities. And you know something else about these workers? For their own abilities, they work their ass off far more than you, me, or any of the rich business tycoons do.
And the majority of the lower class does not 'live off welfare'. It's another one of the myths you seem to so enjoy spewing around without supplying proof.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Except that you always blame society, or a government, for people's problems, not the actual people. Because you're shifting the blame away from people, you either consciously or subconsciously believe people are inherently good. If people weren't inherently good, then they'd be forced to take responsibility. But as I've seen from you, you hate that concept.
People have responsibility for their own actions; but their own actions are stimulated by a response to society, government, or other external factors. Do you think people choose to be lazy just to be lazy? It's about as stupid as saying that terrorists like to destroy people because they are 'evil'. This is utterly illogical. Poverty causes necessity for money. People have a little something called the survival instinct, which means they won't sit around home and do absolutely nothing if they alternative is between living in poverty or getting a job. The problem is, jobs usually supply unsuitable finances and benefits, so crime appears to be the only viable option. This is another example of how poverty leads to crime, an not the other way around.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Lets see, blame the majority of problems on the sufferer, or take your logic and blame everything on society or government. I'll take my view. And I know that not in all cases is the sufferer responsible. But it happens more often then not. What people do NOT need, and what you are offering, is a crutch or a justification.
Once again, you live in some sort of dream where everybody is born with equal fortune and opportunities in life. This is not true. Some people are less fortunate than others, simply because of chance- and it is the government's responsibility to help those less fortunate than others. Help the weaker class. This is what I believe to be justice.
Most people in poverty do have a 'crutch or justification' for their financial situation; namely, it is not their own responsibility.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I've seen it all around me. In some instances I've seen people in your argument. Mythical group my ass. It happens everywhere.
So you could supply proof and statistics...?
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
So I'm supposed to pay more taxes so more people can live off welfare and not contribute anything to society? Yea makes a lot of sense. I'll pay higher taxes if the government can create some kind of a program that would MINIMIZE abuse of said program.
Yes, that's correct. You (I presume you're an upper middle class type of guy) have to pay more taxes so other individuals can survive, from a financial point of perspective. You don't need the money to survive; they do, and therefore their need immediately transcends your's. Or mine, for that matter.
The government's job is to serve its populace; this is the very foundation of democracy. And weaker members of society need to be helped, in order to further even the scales. Because every person, no matter how lazy or even stupid, has a right to lead a certain standard of living.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Or how about the drug addict who gets money from the government and uses it on..Drugs? See? We can both create cases. Yours isn't especially unique.
Do you even know what leads people to drug addictions? Desperation. A need for escapism from the routine. You hand someone welfare, you eliminate their need for this sort of escapism. And besides, even if this doesn't work, we have rehabilitation programs for drug addicts.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I love your black and white arguments.
The conservative is attacking me for black and white arguments? The guy who says that we're good, the terrorists are evil, poor people are responsible for their condition, and homosexuals are bad because the Bible says so tells me I make black and white arguments? Please, at least refrain from such blatant hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Had the government NOT supplied the drug dealer with more money, the drug dealer wouldn't be buying more drugs and digging himself into a deeper hole. See, it works for me too! Again, I love how people have the temerity to constantly blame everyone BUT the individual.
Oh, come on, could you at least probe deeper into liberal arguments? The individual is, too, to blame. This calls for another example:
A man is consistently abused by his parents; this leads to potential sociopathy and built-up anger. Eventually, the man reaches a breaking point and commits murder.
Who is to blame? The parents and the man? I say both. The man made that choice, and it was ultimately his responsibility, but the parents stimulated the man to make that choice; therefore, it is dually their responsibility. The inherent difference is, if the parents hadn't done anything, the man would not have come to the point of murder. If society was capable of predicting this events, the parents should have been prevented from handing the abuse; therefore, the man would not have committed the murder.
The same applies for this economic policy. Eliminate the need for crime and you don't bring a man to choosing it as a way of life. Sure, the harm he will pose on society if he actually does that is a crime and a matter of his personal choice, but by twisting factors a little, you can prevent him from coming to that choice.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B]I've asked this before and I'm going to ask this again: Are. You. High? A homeless guy does not find a job because he does not want to? He wants to live on the streets, without a shelter and without the ability to live well? Oh, sure, he's just lazy. Or did you perhaps consider the possibility that he lacks the education necessary for a proper job? And that the minimum wage is not nearly enough for him to finance himself? And you tell me my arguments are black and white.
The woman who lives off of welfare? Again: have you thought of the possibility that she, um, can't get a job? And again. If she lives off of welfare, leads a decent life, doesn't harm anybody and manages to achieve a state of happiness... what is the problem with that? Hell, she needs the money to survive. The rich people who get harmed for it don't.
Of course the majority can blame themselves! How awfully simplistic. And now you can substantiate that. You can provide examples of the actual parasites instead of talking about them and bashing them. And you can give suitable examples of how people selectively choose to remain in the lower class.
Crime causes poverty? WTF? Crime is generated by desperation and a necessity for money. This is, in turn, generated by poverty. Poverty causes crime, not the other way around. If there are less poor people in the U.S, there is less motive for crime.
The people who work in textile factories because that's what their skillset allows them to do do their absolute best to contribute to society; but, unfortunately, the wage is not nearly high enough for them to live in a proper way. Therefore, welfare is a necessary supplement for these people. Because every person has a fundamental right to at least lead some sort of living standard, regardless of their abilities. And you know something else about these workers? For their own abilities, they work their ass off far more than you, me, or any of the rich business tycoons do.
And the majority of the lower class does not 'live off welfare'. It's another one of the myths you seem to so enjoy spewing around without supplying proof.
People have responsibility for their own actions; but their own actions are stimulated by a response to society, government, or other external factors. Do you think people choose to be lazy just to be lazy? It's about as stupid as saying that terrorists like to destroy people because they are 'evil'. This is utterly illogical. Poverty causes necessity for money. People have a little something called the survival instinct, which means they won't sit around home and do absolutely nothing if they alternative is between living in poverty or getting a job. The problem is, jobs usually supply unsuitable finances and benefits, so crime appears to be the only viable option. This is another example of how poverty leads to crime, an not the other way around.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I claimed your arguments are black and white because you want to institute a policy that encompasses every situation and breeds abuse and corruption.
Even if we ignore the black/white hypocrisy, do you see that in order to have any purpose at all the government's actions must secure the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people, preferably as efficiently as possible. By dint of its existence, a policy must cover every situation.
I investigated a bit, and (for unemployment, at least) there are counter-corruption measures in place. For people seeking benefits for unemployment, a few baselilnes must be met:
[list=a]
[*]You must be actively looking for a job
This ensures that you will not be on for long- those seeking benefits must apply at approx. 5 jobs/week
[*]*You must be determined to be unemployed through no fault of your own (determined under State law), and meet other eligibility requirments of State law.
[/list]
(*This one is copy/pasted)
On top of that, recipients of benefits do not get (nearly) the amount of money they made, and benefits only last for a few weeks. (The economic downturn may have extended these benefits, or shortened them as governments run out of money.)
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Has it ever occured to you that the homeless man became homeless because of his own faults? G-d forbid he has to answer for his own actions and not blame everybody else like you're suggesting.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Has it ever occurred to you that rich people got rich because they worked their asses off and poor people became poor because they didn't? Oh what a joy it would be to assume responsibility. But then again, we won't be able to blame society or the government. See? It goes both ways.
And what of those working full time yet falling below the poverty line? Aren't they deserving of aid?
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Oh really? Then how do you account for white collar crimes? Gosh, those rich bastards must be starving for money. There's so much poverty in rich neighborhoods! No. Crime causes poverty.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti199.pdf
At first glance, a psychological explanation for fraud would appear simple—greed and dishonesty. Such an explanation is, however, overly simplistic.
[...]
Explanations based on financial strain feature in almost every type of fraudulent activity. This may arise from imprudence, misfortune or a combination of the two. Of course, financial strain is a very subjective thing. Even those of above-average affluence may feel economically deprived in comparison to what they perceive to be their relevant standard. At times, “keeping up with the Jones’s” may require other than lawful conduct. Simply put, this comes down to the desire to possess what one cannot afford, even when true financial deprivation may not exist.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
There is skilled labor and unskilled labor. There's a reason skilled laborers get paid more, because they have a level of expertise. I know you'd like to believe that unskilled laborers are there because of circumstances because that leaves no room to take responsibility, whereas I'd like to think that unskilled laborers chose their paths.
In general, if you gave them the choice between being nurses, lawyers, doctors or well paid teachers (which are few and far between) and being a killing floor worker or waitress for 30 years, which do you think most people would choose?
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Oh right, says the liberal who blames everybody but the individual, without offering an iota of proof. Practice what you preach.This is classic liberal bullshit.
This is the bullshit liberals preach.
It's by far the dumbest thing I've ever heard and basically proves my idea that most liberals are dumber than dry paint.
You sir are an idiot. I am no longer responding to you.
I think that this is the gist of your point:
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
So what you're saying is, I can't ever learn to be a moral or ethical person because some people running this country aren't moral or ethical? No, people's responsibility is governed by people's choices. The easy way out is blaming everybody else, which you are so fond of doing. And our argument ends right here after reading your terrorist comment. Yes, they're terrorists because of societal and governmental forces! Not because they have skewed beliefs or are delusional, so its NOT their fault!
No one is absolving wrongdoers of their crimes, nor are they removing ethical problems, or even shifting all blame to the government. One of the foundations of human society and law is a firm belief in free will. The only thing that liberals (so if you want a label, "we"😉 are doing is recognizing that there can be other factors in a decision.
As for the "Terrists"? They are not evil. They are doing what they feel is absolutely necessary to attain their goals. That their goals are mutually exclusive to ours is unfortunate, but does not make them evil.
Originally posted by Red NemesisEven if we ignore the black/white hypocrisy, do you see that in order to have any purpose at all the government's actions must secure the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people, preferably as efficiently as possible. By dint of its existence, a policy must cover every situation.
I investigated a bit, and (for unemployment, at least) there are counter-corruption measures in place. For people seeking benefits for unemployment, a few baselilnes must be met:
[list=a]
[*]You must be actively looking for a job
This ensures that you will not be on for long- those seeking benefits must apply at approx. 5 jobs/week
[*]*You must be determined to be unemployed through no fault of your own (determined under State law), and meet other eligibility requirments of State law.
[/list]
(*This one is copy/pasted)
On top of that, recipients of benefits do not get (nearly) the amount of money they made, and benefits only last for a few weeks. (The economic downturn may have extended these benefits, or shortened them as governments run out of money.)
While there are certainly people who deserve the life they have built for themselves, there are also those who do not. Are you willing to punish those who are not to blame for their difficulties on the off chance that someone may get something they did not earn?
And what of those working full time yet falling below the poverty line? Aren't they deserving of aid?
Again, there is this absolutist polarity between the two of you. Again, my personal beliefs tend to side with Crimzon, but I think that to speak practically on these matters we have to be willing to compromise our ideologies. White Collar crime may have factors other than desperation (like greed) or it could be a sign of deeper personal problems (like greed+lack of ethics or using money [gained at any cost] to compensate for any manner of deficiencies):
In general, if you gave them the choice between being nurses, lawyers, doctors or well paid teachers (which are few and far between) and being a killing floor worker or waitress for 30 years, which do you think most people would choose?
No one is absolving wrongdoers of their crimes, nor are they removing ethical problems, or even shifting all blame to the government. One of the foundations of human society and law is a firm belief in free will. The only thing that liberals (so if you want a label, "we"😉 are doing is recognizing that there can be other factors in a decision.
As for the "Terrists"? They are not evil. They are doing what they feel is absolutely necessary to attain their goals. That their goals are mutually exclusive to ours is unfortunate, but does not make them evil. [/B]
1. Bullshit.
2. This isn't the argument Crimzon made. He claimed that terrorists exist because, again, of outside forces. This is bullshit at its finest. He does a great job at always shifting the blame. It's ISRAEL's fault Hamas and the Palestinians attack them. I bet it's also the Jew's fault for the holocaust too huh? Claiming that terrorists exist because of poverty and societal forces is retarded.
3. I find this line of thinking ridiculous. We are back to square one. Are you telling me that everything is subjective and that there aren't universal rights and wrongs? Suicide bombing isn't wrong? I don't care if in their mind they try to justify it, it still makes it wrong. IF you are claiming terrorists aren't evil, you are also claiming the Nazi's weren't evil. And the argument ends there if that's what you claim.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Again, I am all for welfare. There's a LOT of abuse of it though. I am for helping the poor. I help the poor as often as I can. But if we are to increase aid, we do it in a manner that limits abuse and gets people off their feet and in the right direction, aka a job.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
This is great, I wasn't aware of the countermeasures. However, I have seen the corruption. I have spent time in county jail as well but that's neither here nor there. The point is, abuse exists in the majority of the United States. I'm suggesting we change our methods to get people off their feet.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
No but at the same time I do not condone people who work their asses off to get taxed so deadbeats get more money.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Notice how I never said we should ban any kind of government assistance.
Originally posted by Darth SexyHowever, you can't claim that poverty causes crime because you would really need to back that up, especially against my white collar example. I think crime impoverishes neighborhoods.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:4_OSltp24lwJ:www.hhh.umn.edu/people/jbatwood/pdf/link_poverty_conflict.pdf+link+between+poverty+and+crime&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Pervasive poverty alone is not a sufficient condition to create a
major conflict, or even to cause an individual to commit an act of violence. Yet, many studies show that there is a strong correlation between the absence of material well-being and the prospects for violence, from crime in inner-city neighborhoods to instability in poor nations.*6*6. J.A. Goldstone, T. R., Gurr, B. Harff, and others, “State Failure Task Force Report,
Phase III Findings” (preliminary results presented at Science Applications International
Corporation, MacLean, Va., June 14, 2002). Retrieved October 13, 2003 from:
http://www.cidcm.umn.edu/inscr/stfail/SFTF%20Phase%20III%20Report%
20Final.pdf October 2003.
There's more:
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/14908120/detail.html
"Most of it is due to poverty," said counselor Charles McClelland. "Most of it is due to lack of not having resources, not having the wherewithal to do the things that they see, may it be on television, videos, and they want that experience."
And more:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4200973.stm
He has carried out a study which found that a significant proportion of prisoners came from some of the most deprived communities.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Give them a choice? Why would we make them choose that? They can have a choice if they go to school or pick up some kind of valuable skill.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
This is exactly what Crimzon is doing. He has not once held the responsible party, responsible. It is always society or the government. This lack of common sense is very frustrating.
I'll let his own words speak for him:
Who is to blame? The parents and the man? I say both. The man made that choice, and it was ultimately his responsibility[...]
Anyway, I'll not respond to this point in the future as it is Crimzon's argument, not mine.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
1. Bullshit.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
2. This isn't the argument Crimzon made. He claimed that terrorists exist because, again, of outside forces. This is bullshit at its finest. He does a great job at always shifting the blame. It's ISRAEL's fault Hamas and the Palestinians attack them. I bet it's also the Jew's fault for the holocaust too huh? Claiming that terrorists exist because of poverty and societal forces is retarded.
Actually, I'm not sure how this applies to liberalism/conservatism. Could you tie this back into the discussion in your response? Something to do with perpetrator vs. victim, maybe? (I'm kinda lost.)
Terrorism
Terrorism is a tactic, much like guerrilla warfare. It is no different from drawing lines on a battlefield or digging trenches or building fortifications.
What we have done, under the Bush administration, is to declare war on a tactic. So long as we confine it to Islamic terrorism, we at least have a semblance of an enemy. Islamic terrorists are operating under a warped (some might say 'wrong', but I'm largely ignorant of Islamic doctrine) interpretation of their religious faith. They are using a military tactic to achieve goals inspired by religious conviction. How is that different from when Christians attacked the Holy Land or when they bomb abortion clinics today?
I'll include #3 in my next response. I'm going to bed.
Originally posted by Red NemesisNot in the slightest, but that doesn't mean they should be given free money. Some form of compensation should exist to repay the society that's helped them. I've known and met too many abusers of the (Canadian) system to condone it.Those "deadbeats" are part of society. They (should) vote, they can be drafted to serve their country, they can be called on to participate in the judicial process, they help the economy flow (for a while, at least) and they are human beings. That they are unfortunate human beings doesn't make them bad.
Originally posted by Red NemesisI'm sorry, but when did county jail turn into the US? I mean, I know we have a lot of inmates, but come on... We're not quite there yet. Anyway, do you have any way (not generalizations) to substantiate the corruption that you claim is such a widespread problem?
Those "deadbeats" are part of society. They (should) vote, they can be drafted to serve their country, they can be called on to participate in the judicial process, they help the economy flow (for a while, at least) and they are human beings. That they are unfortunate human beings doesn't make them [b]bad.
[b]FIXED
Here's one source:
There's more:
And more:[/quote]
I can give you sources, prominent conservatives, who prove that crime causes poverty, not the other way around. And again, i've shown you that if poverty causes crime, then explain white collar crimes in rich neighborhood. You don't have much to go on other than some liberal sources.
I was illustrating the fact that the masses don't choose unskilled labor positions. Given the right opportunities, most would jump at the chance to be something like a vet or a teacher. For many, however, college education and even a good high school education is out of reach, not only because of economic issues, but also social issues. (I was talking about this [in the context of the benefits of the minimum wage] just recently.)
Quite frankly, I don't know enough about the history of the region to discuss it with anything approaching intelligence. I'm going to ignore the specifics and move onto the broader claims: the accusation of blaming the Jews for the Holocaust (that you would even imply that about someone is insulting) and the root cause of terrorism.
[b]The problem of Blame
The Jews and WWII Germany was a completely different situation. In that case, the Jews didn't hold overwhelming military or economic power (anti-Semitic paranoia notwithstanding). The people that can most easily be held responsible for the Holocaust are those high up in the Nazi regime that decided to make the Jews into a scapegoat. They are responsible, but all who helped, took part or even stood by and did nothing are to blame. Fear is not an excuse to try to help. (Assuming, of course, that one knew about the death camps/bad fate for captured/identified Jews.)
Actually, I'm not sure how this applies to liberalism/conservatism. Could you tie this back into the discussion in your response? Something to do with perpetrator vs. victim, maybe? (I'm kinda lost.)
[b]Terrorism
Terrorism is a tactic, much like guerrilla warfare. It is no different from drawing lines on a battlefield or digging trenches or building fortifications.
What we have done, under the Bush administration, is to declare war on a tactic. So long as we confine it to Islamic terrorism, we at least have a semblance of an enemy. Islamic terrorists are operating under a warped (some might say 'wrong', but I'm largely ignorant of Islamic doctrine) interpretation of their religious faith. They are using a military tactic to achieve goals inspired by religious conviction. How is that different from when Christians attacked the Holy Land or when they bomb abortion clinics today?
Origiannly posted by Darth Sexy
I love your black and white arguments.
Originally posted by Darth SexyHypocrisy, much?
I'll give you a lesson. Poverty doesn't cause crime. Crime causes poverty.
I also counted at least half a dozen mentions of "typical/liberal/leftist bullshit" in that first post and a quick skim. I can tell this is going to be fun.
Originally posted by Publius II
Hypocrisy, much?I also counted at least half a dozen mentions of "typical/liberal/leftist bullshit" in that first post and a quick skim. I can tell this is going to be fun.
Thanks moderator. I'm glad to have your input into my spelling/grammar/ideological mistakes. Maybe you can lay off correcting everyone and contribute something, or just not post?
Originally posted by Darth SexyYeah, it's not like I spent ten pages "debating" with you already.
Thanks moderator. I'm glad to have your input into my spelling/grammar/ideological mistakes. Maybe you can lay off correcting everyone and contribute something, or just not post?
And point out the grammar and spelling corrections, please. I noted hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Publius II
Yeah, it's not like I spent ten pages "debating" with you already.And point out the grammar and spelling corrections, please. I noted hypocrisy.
You have not debated me in weeks, and not on these issues. With all do respect, do I go into your threads, troll and point out your mistakes? If you have an argument to make then make it but I would think you would have better things to do than to go into threads and post people's mistakes.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy1.) I haven't forgotten the experience. It's only been two weeks.
You have not debated me in weeks, and not on these issues. With all do respect, do I go into your threads, troll and point out your mistakes? If you have an argument to make then make it but I would think you would have better things to do than to go into threads and post people's mistakes.
2.) This isn't your thread.
3.) Debating is substantiating your assertion while attempting to disprove that of the opposition. Hypocrisy is a fatal flaw in any argument. My pointing that out isn't trolling.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy1.) Must be the crack.
Ah the experience. I've forgotten all about it.2. It's an argument that YOURE not a part of.
3. Alright. So I'll read all of your posts and comment on all of your mistakes. Lets see how long it takes you to call me a troll.
2.) Would you really like me join in? I mean if you're actually asking me to, I will, regardless of the risk of brain damage.
3.) Knock yourself out.
Also, I only commented on one of your mistakes: the hypocrisy. You clearly don't have a problem with pointing out "typical/liberal/leftist bullshit," so you can't possibly be referring to the second line of my post.