The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

1. Yes that's it.

2. If you want to join that's fine. I just assumed that if you're going to take the time to point out mistakes, you are going to offer your input as well. Or rather, you're not going to comment in a thread you don't wish to argue. But that's just me.

3. Thanks

You can point out whatever it is you want to make yourself sleep better at night. Btw, I have the right to call something liberal/leftist/etc when it's the typical argument made by that side, so I don't know what you're getting so pissy about.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
1. Yes that's it.

2. If you want to join that's fine. I just assumed that if you're going to take the time to point out mistakes, you are going to offer your input as well. Or rather, you're not going to comment in a thread you don't wish to argue. But that's just me.

3. Thanks

You can point out whatever it is you want to make yourself sleep better at night. Btw, I have the right to call something liberal/leftist/etc when it's the typical argument made by that side, so I don't know what you're getting so pissy about.

2.) I don't look forward to it - as I said, the risk of brain damage is rather significant - but since you invited me to join in, I will.

3.) I'm not getting pissy about it. I'm getting a kick out of it; generalizations make me smile (see what I did there?).

Anyway, I'll get to this tomorrow. If either Crimzon or Nemesis have responded by then, I'll start with the most recent post.

I'm glad you like generalizations. Is there anything else you'd like for me to know about your happiness? Perhaps you could start a livejournal?

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. 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.

Except that you're referring to a very specific group. Largely, they're not the most prominent one among the economically disadvantaged who will get benefits from governmental welfare programs.

Also, do you honestly think that someone chose to be homeless? Here's a newsflash; the majority of people actually want to live a decent life. However, they simply lack the skill necessary to pass your test of 'contribution to society'... so does it mean the government should completely abandon them?

Again, I completely agree that plenty of poor people will take advantage of welfare, but the majority of these people aren't poor because of a conscious choice- they are because of misfortune, a lack of equal opportunities, and, occasionally, a lack of actual abilities that society happens to glorify.

To put it simply, I don't believe in the survival of the strong. The weak must be helped by the government, even if it requires aid from the strong.

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.

Wonderful. But the majority of rich people are born into rich families, or middle class ones, while the majority of poor people are born into poor families in disadvantaged, godforsaken areas. In turn, they both get a generally inferior education, and must occasionally resort to crime in order to survive.

I'm sure there are poor people who manage to turn rich because of their own, personal skills, but not everyone who works hard can achieve the same level of success. The majority of lower class individuals don't sit on their asses doing nothing; no, they go to manual, minimum-wage jobs that simply don't supply nearly enough money to survive.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
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.

I'm still waiting. Where are the evil parasites? Or are they a figment of an over-active conservative imagination that, as usual, thrives on denial?

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.

How exactly does crime cause poverty? I'd love you to explain that cycle.

White collar crime stems from the natural fallibility of humans; due to the absurd power of mega-corporations, it is only natural that the people revert to abuse of their power and, of course, greed.

The crime done by the lower class (which is actually the majority of crime) is considerably different in nature. It comes from desperation. It comes through need. It comes through necessity. Therefore, by enabling every single individual to maintain a live-able standard of living, crime will logically deteriorate. Less people will need to find an alternative financial source, like drug dealing- less people will be driven to anger and frustration, which could reduce the number of violent crimes like rape and murder.

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.

Which is why I'm not a communist or a pure socialist; I believe it is absolutely fair that certain people, who are more skilled than others, earn more money. This is justice.

But then again, I also believe there are some fundamental human rights which are granted, not earned. This is the ability to lead a life in live-able conditions, regarding of a skillset. Which is why ensuring the fact that everyone in the U.S is capable of leading an at least decent life is absolutely fair; that's because everyone has the right to life (which further justifies universal health care, too), regardless of financial skills. You want to lead a really good life? Work. Contribute to society. But to some extent, a government must ensure a decent life to every one of the country's citizens.

I also cannot bring myself to understand why you think the people who lead an unhappy life in extremely difficult manual jobs (which are infinitely harder and more straining than anything you and I do) choose to do so. Different people have different innate abilities. Different people have different fortunes (can you compare the education given to a middle class or an upper class individual to a lower class one?). But the fact is, we live in a society that glorifies high-tech, cerebral jobs which are far easier to come for people with elite education. The people in poverty are naturally going to get the shorter end of the stick on this matter; their lack of finances, parental encouragement, and possibly their living place are going to prevent them from being able to fairly compete with the members of the upper class (unless they're all geniuses, which they're not). Manual jobs nowadays simply don't pay enough- the minimum wage is far too low. Again, this puts the poor people in one hell of a predicament; perform a job that simply does not give enough money to properly survive, engage in criminality, or beg for money. There's not much of a choice here.

People have something called the survival instinct; that means that people in un-livable conditions aren't going to sit on their asses and do nothing. This has nothing to do with 'fundamentally good and evil'. No, it means that people have a natural will to lead a decent life and survive, and this sort of animalistic instinct overcomes 'laziness'. If the choice is between working and leading a good life or staying home and suffering, a human is naturally going to choose the former.

Also, for 'statistics', because you apparently are unwilling to supply them.

Around 15% of Americans live under the poverty line; these are the people legally defined as 'poor'. The majority of this group is made by ethnic minorities, single parents, and minors: all of whom get considerably less opportunity in life, lesser education, and lesser job opportunities. This already brings the assumption that people in poverty are the people who have a more difficult time to get a job.

Now, moving on. 7.5% of Americans are unemployed. At first glance, this is half of the group in poverty- this does destroy your 'most' conception, but things aren't looking good for my argument unless we dig deeper into this.

This is going to be theoretical, but based on logic. First, you have to eliminate the percentage of individuals who simply lost their jobs as a result of the recent economic crisis. They can be bank workers and such, which means they logically compose the middle class and aren't the ones who welfare will benefit. Then, there are the rich people who simply don't need to work in order to survive: they have enough money as it stands, whether it is from inheritance, fortune, or whatever. Then, there are people who simply don't have a job because their spouse works. They'd rather stay at home and possibly raise the family or do other things. And then there is the fact that many unemployed people are teenagers who likely live off of their parent's money (4.4% of men and women are unemployed at the moment, while 18% of teenagers are).

This already cuts down the percentage of unemployed people who live in poverty to about 4%. But you can't possibly think all of these are there out of a choice right? No, there's the survival instinct factor, which leads me to assume that the majority of people in poverty are going to do their best to get a job- it's in every creature's basic impulse to want to live a decent life, in order to provide for descendants and, of course, survive. And then there's the fact that many of people in poverty simply lack the education and the necessary opportunity to find a decent-pay job, which potentially leads to unemployment.

All in all, I'd say that roughly 2% of unemployed people in the U.S are in poverty and do so out of a conscious choice/laziness. And that's being very generous.

See, I supplied info. Now you substantiate the existence of the mythical group of parasites and where they exist- because I didn't exactly come across them.

I'd get into terrorism, too, but our argument is regarding welfare and economic policy, and I don't want to split it.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B]Except that you're referring to a very specific group. Largely, they're not the most prominent one among the economically disadvantaged who will get benefits from governmental welfare programs.

Also, do you honestly think that someone chose to be homeless? Here's a newsflash; the majority of people actually want to live a decent life. However, they simply lack the skill necessary to pass your test of 'contribution to society'... so does it mean the government should completely abandon them?

Again, I completely agree that plenty of poor people will take advantage of welfare, but the majority of these people aren't poor because of a conscious choice- they are because of misfortune, a lack of equal opportunities, and, occasionally, a lack of actual abilities that society happens to glorify.

To put it simply, I don't believe in the survival of the strong. The weak must be helped by the government, even if it requires aid from the strong.

Wonderful. But the majority of rich people are born into rich families, or middle class ones, while the majority of poor people are born into poor families in disadvantaged, godforsaken areas. In turn, they both get a generally inferior education, and must occasionally resort to crime in order to survive.

I'm sure there are poor people who manage to turn rich because of their own, personal skills, but not everyone who works hard can achieve the same level of success. The majority of lower class individuals don't sit on their asses doing nothing; no, they go to manual, minimum-wage jobs that simply don't supply nearly enough money to survive.

I'm still waiting. Where are the evil parasites? Or are they a figment of an over-active conservative imagination that, as usual, thrives on denial?

White collar crime stems from the natural fallibility of humans; due to the absurd power of mega-corporations, it is only natural that the people revert to abuse of their power and, of course, greed.

The crime done by the lower class (which is actually the majority of crime) is considerably different in nature. It comes from desperation. It comes through need. It comes through necessity. Therefore, by enabling every single individual to maintain a live-able standard of living, crime will logically deteriorate. Less people will need to find an alternative financial source, like drug dealing- less people will be driven to anger and frustration, which could reduce the number of violent crimes like rape and murder.

But then again, I also believe there are some fundamental human rights which are granted, not earned. This is the ability to lead a life in live-able conditions, regarding of a skillset. Which is why ensuring the fact that everyone in the U.S is capable of leading an at least decent life is absolutely fair; that's because everyone has the right to life (which further justifies universal health care, too), regardless of financial skills. You want to lead a really good life? Work. Contribute to society. But to some extent, a government must ensure a decent life to every one of the country's citizens.

I also cannot bring myself to understand why you think the people who lead an unhappy life in extremely difficult manual jobs (which are infinitely harder and more straining than anything you and I do) choose to do so. Different people have different innate abilities. Different people have different fortunes (can you compare the education given to a middle class or an upper class individual to a lower class one?). But the fact is, we live in a society that glorifies high-tech, cerebral jobs which are far easier to come for people with elite education. The people in poverty are naturally going to get the shorter end of the stick on this matter; their lack of finances, parental encouragement, and possibly their living place are going to prevent them from being able to fairly compete with the members of the upper class (unless they're all geniuses, which they're not). Manual jobs nowadays simply don't pay enough- the minimum wage is far too low. Again, this puts the poor people in one hell of a predicament; perform a job that simply does not give enough money to properly survive, engage in criminality, or beg for money. There's not much of a choice here.

People have something called the survival instinct; that means that people in un-livable conditions aren't going to sit on their asses and do nothing. This has nothing to do with 'fundamentally good and evil'. No, it means that people have a natural will to lead a decent life and survive, and this sort of animalistic instinct overcomes 'laziness'. If the choice is between working and leading a good life or staying home and suffering, a human is naturally going to choose the former.

Around 15% of Americans live under the poverty line; these are the people legally defined as 'poor'. The majority of this group is made by ethnic minorities, single parents, and minors: all of whom get considerably less opportunity in life, lesser education, and lesser job opportunities. This already brings the assumption that people in poverty are the people who have a more difficult time to get a job.

Now, moving on. 7.5% of Americans are unemployed. At first glance, this is half of the group in poverty- this does destroy your 'most' conception, but things aren't looking good for my argument unless we dig deeper into this.

This already cuts down the percentage of unemployed people who live in poverty to about 4%. But you can't possibly think all of these are there out of a choice right? No, there's the survival instinct factor, which leads me to assume that the majority of people in poverty are going to do their best to get a job- it's in every creature's basic impulse to want to live a decent life, in order to provide for descendants and, of course, survive. And then there's the fact that many of people in poverty simply lack the education and the necessary opportunity to find a decent-pay job, which potentially leads to unemployment.

All in all, I'd say that roughly 2% of unemployed people in the U.S are in poverty and do so out of a conscious choice/laziness. And that's being very generous.

See, I supplied info. Now you substantiate the existence of the mythical group of parasites and where they exist- because I didn't exactly come across them.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
So you say. I'd say the prominent group consists of abusers.

Bullshit. People who are below the poverty line are in a constant state of suffering. Their interest is, naturally, to make more money so they can live a decent life. They don't abuse the system and they are not parasites; they simply lack the skillset, the education, and the fortune necessary to make money.

This belief that people enjoy being homeless and living in poverty is utterly unsubstantiated.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
No, I think someone chose to be lazy and unmotivated and as a result became hopeless. The idea sounds so disgusting to you because that would mean the homeless person would have to take responsibility.

Oh, yeah, absolutely. They're lazy and unmotivated. In fact, they subjectively select to be poor because they somehow gain something from it.

^ The above scenario? It's unrealistic and it has nothing to do with the current world. People are poor because of misfortune, because they occasionally lack the skills that the modern world glorifies (and therefore, manual labor is the only way they make money. However, it simply doesn't supply enough cash, is extremely hard, and is a very small part of today's economy). People are poor because of a lack of equal opportunity. As I've proven, the vast majority of people below the poverty line are employed, and they likely take the highest paying employment that their skillset is sufficient for. Apparently, however, that's not enough.

I think weaker individuals must be helped by the government, in order to compensate for natural fortune and talents.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Prove it.

Some statistics:

22% of all minors are in poverty. 30% of African American minors live in poverty. The majority of these live in rural areas, which have considerably inferior schooling and educational opportunity.

26.6% of single parents live in poverty. 44% of African American parents live in poverty. Can you honestly say these people are to blame for their current financial situation?

Over 20% of both Hispanics and Blacks live in poverty.

Make your own conclusions. Unless ethnic minorities and single parents are naturally less skilled or less motivated (which they're not), there is something very largely wrong with our current society.

I choose to believe that this is proof that there is still a great deal of racism in the U.S, and this calls for some degree of affirmative action. Now then, I'm sure you're going to say that these people simply use racism as an excuse for laziness. I'm going to say that this is absurd, racist in itself, and ridiculously uncaring, so don't even bother saying that.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I believe in the survival of the strong. I believe we should help the poor to an extent, and that extent is getting them off their feet and increasing their productivity.

Here's a quote for you to consider: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I believe in the above quote. Certain people are naturally capable of contributing to society more than others. I'm sure we can find agreement on this matter.

But regardless, I feel that the majority of people below the poverty line (and this is substantiated by the statistics I offered, the survival instinct, etc...) do their best to get a job; they're simply incapable of doing so due to the fact that their skillset and education aren't needed in the modern world. Now, it's fine that some people make more money than others, but I believe that every single human has the right to live a certain standard of living, especially if they aren't capable of accomplishing it with their own skills. This is fairness.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
This is hilarious. Where do you get your numbers. I'll let you in on a secret. Rich people had to GET there. So did poor people. Through choices, chance, circumstance, whatever.

Oh, you don't believe the majority of poor people are born to poor people, and the majority of rich people are born to rich people? This is simple logic.

Another potential example (which seems highly plausible, considering my statistics): A man is born to an African American family in the rural sections of the United States. The father, who is the primary supplier of money to the family, eventually falls sick with cancer and dies. The mother, who is used to acting as a homemaker and lacks the necessary skills in order to finance the family eventually succumbs into gambling as the only way to provide for her family. Of course, she fails completely and the family falls below the poverty line. Now then, the son really tries to work hard at school- but not only is the general quality of the school inferior to the one offered in suburbs and urban areas, but his lack of funding for private tutoring and other extracurricular activities leads him to fall behind his peers. This is further supplemented by the fact that he has to finance his family, which leads him to do some sort of job which takes away from his 'studying hours'. Eventually, in order to fully finance his family, he flunks out of school at 10th Grade and is therefore prevented from getting an education.

Later, this prevents him from being accepted into colleges (not to mention his lack of money also affects that); his only 'refuge', if you will, is manual, blue-collar labor which nowadays simply does not supply enough money.

This is a rather realistic example. Through no fault of their own, the son and the mother born descended into poverty- through a mixture of misfortune, alienation with society, and a simple lack of certain skills. Do you not think the government has a fundamental responsibility to help these people?
How about the idea that people would rather rob, murder, to survive, rather than get an education? In fact that's more normal than what you're talking about.

And how did they get to their minimum wage job? Mostly without education. Don't tell me "low class minimum wage people don't have a choice", because they got there somehow and don't blame the government for it.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I forgot, the liberal rhetoric includes playing "I know you are but what am I'. I've already called you delusional and accused you of being in denial. Repeating that back to me doesn't change anything.

So offer proof and supply statistics of the 'parasites'. If you don't, you've lost your logical backing for this argument.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
****ing hilarious. Faunus is right I do generalize a lot but in this case everything seems to be predictable. Low class people aren't evil, the government and society is evil, and rich people. I forgot about that logic rofl. Way to patronize the low class with your retarded sympathy. And regardless, prove poverty causes crime. The example I gave you shows this is not the case. I agree there's a lot of crime in poverty stricken areas but I don't believe the crime exists because of the poverty.

Rich people aren't evil, but being rich with a lot of power gives a lot of ground for greed and corruption to take route.

Poverty drives people to crime because of desperation, a need for a 'quick buck' (because legitimate jobs that are based on people's sometimes inferior skill set don't pay enough), and, occasionally, a need for escapism from a harsh reality. This is not really that hard to get.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Necessity my ass. I guess bank robbers find it NECESSARY to steal millions of dollars. I guess people find it NECESSARY to kill other people for drugs. You always operate under the impression that the government OWES you something. The government should help to a certain extent but in no way does it OWE you anything.

The government OWES the people of their nation something, because these people pay taxes and help create the country. Again, the government's jobs is to serve the country's populace, not the other way around.

I'm referring to crime in poverty-stricken areas, which is the vast majority of crime within the U.S. Deter poverty levels, crime decreases along with it. It won't kill crime, but it will certainly affect it.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
The ability to lead a life in livable condition should come from the individual. Only in extreme cases should the government help, when it truly isn't the individual's fault and he's a victim of circumstance. MOST people are lazy, this is not a generalization. Being productive isn't a simple thing, it's difficult. I'd rather play a video game than attend school, on most occasions. I'd rather watch Law and Order than do homework (when I was in school). If you work your ass off, you will get somewhere in this country.

BULLSHIT. Again, the vast majority of poor people in the U.S work in manual jobs that are hard beyond what you, I, and our middle/upper class bodies can imagine. For example, being a doctor is a very hard job, but there's a level of gratification and a lack of physical strain to be earned from it. Being a worker in a textile factor? You break your ****ing back and strain yourself beyond belief, because this is all you can do with your specific skillset. These are the people that governmental welfare will largely benefit; the people who simply don't have the skills, the education, and the fortune necessary to financially survive in the modern world. And it's very sad, because they generally attempt to work a legitimate job.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Newsflash. People choose these jobs because they have no other choice. They lack education or the necessary skills for better jobs. Don't blame it on fortunes, blame it on the skill set of the person. And no, this country glorifies skills and education. Don't blame society for the lower class lacking that. Blame the lower class for not doing what is necessary to advance. As I said, K-12 is free almost everywhere in America. ANYONE can get government loans for college. Don't blame society, blame the individual.

Is skill a natural occurrence or something that has to be developed? Ultimately, I believe it is a mixture of the two. But the facts of life are as thus: some people are born with greater intelligence, educational talent, and money. This is fact. Therefore, in order to compensate for sheer luckiness, the government must assist the weaker groups because they need that sort of help in order to lead a decent life. Do you think just anyone can succeed on their own ability? Sadly, no. I'd love it if everyone was born with equal money and equal skill (that'd be genuine fairness), but that's not the way the world works.

EVERY human has a right to an at least survivable life; this is my philosophy. Regardless of their working abilities or their intelligence, or their laziness or their ambition, there are some basic economic privileges the country must supply to the individuals.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
They got themselves in these situations. Not the government, not society, not Ronald Regan. The choice should be to get an education and a valuable skill set. Not sit home and sulk about how the government screwed you.

Hint hint, survival instinct again. People have the fundamental impulse to fend for themselves and their offspring, just like any other animal; and I've already proven that the majority of poor people actually work. If someone needs money, they're naturally going to work for it in order to survive. This is the way nature works. Trust me when I say that the poor people who sit home and sulk about how the government screwed them over and few and far in between.

Not all people are going to get an equal education: the wealthy are always going to have a headstart and an advantage over the poor in this department. Not all people are capable of attaining the same skillset. It is therefore the government's responsibility to make up for natural fortune by assisting the less lucky with funding, to help them lead an at least survive-able life.

Also, stop with the 'government, society, and Reagan' bullshit already. It's not witty, it's not funny, and it certainly doesn't contribute to your argument.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Less opportunity? Prove it. We came to this country was nothing. Within 2 weeks my dad had a job. Within a year he had a promotion, as did my mom. After almost 20 years living here, my parents made it to the top through hard work. We are IMMIGRANTS that came here with LESS than what the lower class had. Don't give me these excuses.

Wonderful. So your parents are especially talented. Not all people have the same degree of talent, no matter how much you try to deny it; not all people are capable of achieving the same degree of success in the modern world. And, again, it should be society's responsibility to make up for this.

Also, since you revel in hard work and building your own fortune and shit like that... what exactly is your occupation?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
No it doesn't. My argument is that most of the lower class abuses the assistance they are given. So this does nothing against my argument.

Prove. It. I've supplied statistics which indicate completely otherwise: the lower class needs that help as a supplement to their manual job in order to survive.

And now it's time to supply statistic for the 'parasites' who live off of welfare.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
And you can't possibly think that all of these people are victims of circumstance. See, we can play that game all day. I don't think that about people in poverty. I think they are there because they didn't work to better themselves and their lives. They're content. And the lack of education is blamed on those people, nobody else. Getting a quality education here is easier than winning a fight with a midget.

You're right. Everybody can get private tutors, everybody can go to 'Math School', everybody can go study at Cambridge, Harvard, MIT, whatever, and everybody receives the same level of encouragement for their parents.

It does not work like that, no matter how much you try to deny it. That's how things would function in a perfect world, but our world is, at the moment, not perfect.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I appreciate your "generous" assumption.

It's logical, it's based on facts, evidence, and deduction. You haven't exactly done the same with your "Poor people = poor because they're lazy! Even the ones who work 10 hours a day, six days a week in extremely hard manual jobs and get a minimum wage that is not nearly sufficient to sustain a living!"

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
You supplied NOTHING regarding the argument. I'm well aware of the % of people below the poverty line. Your assumption is that they all are there because of circumstance. MY assertion is that most of the people there placed themselves there and that a majority of people that receive government aid, abuse it.

Prove it. You know what? Bring me numbers. How many people in the U.S live off of welfare alone?

The fact is, the vast majority of people below the poverty line belong to groups which have lesser opportunity in life, but still work as hard as they possibly can according to their skillset.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Is skill a natural occurrence or something that has to be developed? Ultimately, I believe it is a mixture of the two. But the facts of life are as thus: some people are born with greater intelligence, educational talent, and money. This is fact. Therefore, in order to compensate for sheer luckiness, the government must assist the weaker groups because they need that sort of help in order to lead a decent life. Do you think just anyone can succeed on their own ability? Sadly, no. I'd love it if everyone was born with equal money and equal skill (that'd be genuine fairness), but that's not the way the world works.

The fact is, the vast majority of people below the poverty line belong to groups which have lesser opportunity in life, but still work as hard as they possibly can according to their skillset.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B]Bullshit. People who are below the poverty line are in a constant state of suffering. Their interest is, naturally, to make more money so they can live a decent life. They don't abuse the system and they are not parasites; they simply lack the skillset, the education, and the fortune necessary to make money.

This belief that people enjoy being homeless and living in poverty is utterly unsubstantiated.

Oh, yeah, absolutely. They're lazy and unmotivated. In fact, they subjectively select to be poor because they somehow gain something from it.

^ The above scenario? It's unrealistic and it has nothing to do with the current world. People are poor because of misfortune, because they occasionally lack the skills that the modern world glorifies (and therefore, manual labor is the only way they make money. However, it simply doesn't supply enough cash, is extremely hard, and is a very small part of today's economy). People are poor because of a lack of equal opportunity. As I've proven, the vast majority of people below the poverty line are employed, and they likely take the highest paying employment that their skillset is sufficient for. Apparently, however, that's not enough.

I think weaker individuals must be helped by the government, in order to compensate for natural fortune and talents.

22% of all minors are in poverty. 30% of African American minors live in poverty. The majority of these live in rural areas, which have considerably inferior schooling and educational opportunity.

26.6% of single parents live in poverty. 44% of African American parents live in poverty. Can you honestly say these people are to blame for their current financial situation?

Make your own conclusions. Unless ethnic minorities and single parents are naturally less skilled or less motivated (which they're not), there is something very largely wrong with our current society.

I choose to believe that this is proof that there is still a great deal of racism in the U.S, and this calls for some degree of affirmative action. Now then, I'm sure you're going to say that these people simply use racism as an excuse for laziness. I'm going to say that this is absurd, racist in itself, and ridiculously uncaring, so don't even bother saying that.

I believe in the above quote. Certain people are naturally capable of contributing to society more than others. I'm sure we can find agreement on this matter.

But regardless, I feel that the majority of people below the poverty line (and this is substantiated by the statistics I offered, the survival instinct, etc...) do their best to get a job; they're simply incapable of doing so due to the fact that their skillset and education aren't needed in the modern world. Now, it's fine that some people make more money than others, but I believe that every single human has the right to live a certain standard of living, especially if they aren't capable of accomplishing it with their own skills. This is fairness.

Oh, you don't believe the majority of poor people are born to poor people, and the majority of rich people are born to rich people? This is simple logic.

Another potential example (which seems highly plausible, considering my statistics): A man is born to an African American family in the rural sections of the United States. The father, who is the primary supplier of money to the family, eventually falls sick with cancer and dies. The mother, who is used to acting as a homemaker and lacks the necessary skills in order to finance the family eventually succumbs into gambling as the only way to provide for her family. Of course, she fails completely and the family falls below the poverty line. Now then, the son really tries to work hard at school- but not only is the general quality of the school inferior to the one offered in suburbs and urban areas, but his lack of funding for private tutoring and other extracurricular activities leads him to fall behind his peers. This is further supplemented by the fact that he has to finance his family, which leads him to do some sort of job which takes away from his 'studying hours'. Eventually, in order to fully finance his family, he flunks out of school at 10th Grade and is therefore prevented from getting an education.

This is a rather realistic example. Through no fault of their own, the son and the mother born descended into poverty- through a mixture of misfortune, alienation with society, and a simple lack of certain skills. Do you not think the government has a fundamental responsibility to help these people?
How about the idea that people would rather rob, murder, to survive, rather than get an education? In fact that's more normal than what you're talking about.

So offer proof and supply statistics of the 'parasites'. If you don't, you've lost your logical backing for this argument.

Poverty drives people to crime because of desperation, a need for a 'quick buck' (because legitimate jobs that are based on people's sometimes inferior skill set don't pay enough), and, occasionally, a need for escapism from a harsh reality. This is not really that hard to get. [quote]
Or people are lazy and they want to make the quick buck instead of getting an education, so they start committing crimes and impoverishing their neighborhoods. This is not really that hard to get.

[quote]The government OWES the people of their nation something, because these people pay taxes and help create the country. Again, the government's jobs is to serve the country's populace, not the other way around.

BULLSHIT. Again, the vast majority of poor people in the U.S work in manual jobs that are hard beyond what you, I, and our middle/upper class bodies can imagine. For example, being a doctor is a very hard job, but there's a level of gratification and a lack of physical strain to be earned from it. Being a worker in a textile factor? You break your ****ing back and strain yourself beyond belief, because this is all you can do with your specific skillset. These are the people that governmental welfare will largely benefit; the people who simply don't have the skills, the education, and the fortune necessary to financially survive in the modern world. And it's very sad, because they generally attempt to work a legitimate job. [/B]

Nobody claimed they aren't hard. That's why I went to get an education, because i don't want to kill myself for shit wages. That's what smart people do. If they just went out and got an education, maybe they wouldn't need to break their back for minimum wage.

DS, I do not think that I will be able to continue reasoned discourse with you if you dismiss any evidence that disagrees with you as "liberal bias" and then fail to supply any other authoritative sources. I gave you several articles (admittedly though, they were not all scholarly works) and studies linking poverty and crime, while you gave me your "personal experience". Case studies (like personal experiences) are absolutely insufficient to draw conclusions about national phenomena. Do you have any sources or facts supporting your opinion? We could sit here and expound upon our respective opinions regarding the root cause for poverty until our fingers fall off but we won't get anywhere if you simultaneously reject facts and fail to provide any of your own.

...

With that out of the way, here is a (non-liberal, just look at their opinion/essay page) site linking poverty and crime:

http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com/povertycrime.php
These regressions show that a one percent increase in the population below poverty level will lead to an increase of about 135 total crimes and about 25 violent crimes.

And here (FROM PRINCETON!), a work on poverty's relation to terrorism mimics this conclusion:

http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/terrorism2.pdf

The extensive literature on the economics of crime offers some reason to believe that poverty and lack of education are connected to illegal activity, especially property crimes.

[...]

Available evidence suggests that individuals are more likely to commit property crimes if they have lower wages or less education (for example, Ehrlich, 1973; Freeman, 1996; Piehl, 1998).

So. What do ya know? Poverty does cause crime. Notice the lack of absolutes there? Poverty doesn't always cause all crime, but it does contribute. What has been proven here is that increases in poverty increase the crime rate.

Okay. When a debate reaches over three pages long, it's the effective que for me to begin addressing all of your points in a more organized, linear manner to avoid repetition. If you don't mind, I'll do the same each time the debate extends to three pages again, just to keep an organized structure.

Responsibility: Alright, this is by far and away the most major topic in this debate. The conservative viewpoint is that poor people are largely responsible for their own poverty and simply don't work hard enough, while the liberal viewpoint (which I largely agree with) is that the majority of poor people don't choose to be poor, but are instead stuck in that class due misfortune and, again, lack of equal opportunities in the United States. I'll attempt to substantiate this by displaying multiple issues in the United State's current economic policy.

The Survival Instinct and Poverty as a Reason for Criminality: This is dually an explanation for why both laziness is not an effective explanation for poverty, and why poverty can potentially cause crime. I don't believe that humans are either fundamentally good or evil- but I do agree that humans are fundamentally animals. One of the most important traits of animals is called 'the survival instinct'; basically, it's the desire to survive at all costs in order to continue one's species and provide for one's descendants. It's a natural impulse, and without it, multiple species (possibly including humanity) would be wiped out.

An example that has nothing to do with poverty is thus: when several people are stuck on an island together, and there is no food, it is logical to assume that they would revert to cannibalism. Why? This has nothing to do with 'good or evil'; it has something to do with the constant desire to survive at all costs. People in poverty logically experience the same sort of impulse- the fundamental desire to lead a good life and therefore survive, in order to create the best possible habitat for the eventual continuation of the species.

You can afford to be lazy because your parents are privileged. I can afford to be lazy because I'm underage, and my parents, thank god, aren't in a position of poverty. Therefore, this does not trigger the survival instinct, because our choice is not 'work or die'.

And how does this explain crime? People in poverty, who are far more likely to receive a lesser education (more on that later), have only one type of job available to them: the kind of minimum wage, manual job like factory working. Now, I don't think anybody would consciously choose to work in these kinds of jobs (you and I will not survive a second under these conditions), because they are FAR more difficult than intellectual and cerebral jobs. The people who do that are ****ing heroes (and compose the majority of the lower class); they do their absolute best to contribute to society with their personal skillset and education, but that simply isn't sufficient for them to survive. This leads multiple people to crime- the survival instinct dictates that people will go to lengths which you view as 'immoral' or extreme for the purpose of survival, including violent crime, drug dealing, and such. The crime among the lower class (which composes the vast majority of crime in the U.S) is born out of necessity and desperation. This also explains drug addictions: there's a need for escapism from the impossible to live in routine of poverty. This is why drug addicts need to be treated with compassion instead of force; they are, ultimately, victims of an unfair existence. At least most of them are.

The survival instincts both debunks laziness as an explanation and explains poverty as a reason for crime. Eliminate poverty to a large degree, and you deter crime.

Education: The statistics are simple. If you get more education than others, you will likely live a higher standard of living. You will see how the median income of groups gradually increases as the rate of education increases, and this is absolutely logical. Nowadays, the highest-paying jobs are white collar jobs which hold the prerequisites of a very high education, which includes elite colleges, scholarships, and ridiculously high grades.

But you can't possibly believe that the middle class and the wealthy don't have an access to a higher degree of education than the poor. It begins with the possibilities of public schools and private schools- private schools logically have a higher budget and more money, and therefore attract more capable teachers who teach more prestigious subjects. Indeed, the average level of public schools in the United States is remarkably low compared to the developed world. The problem is, private schools are extremely expensive due to their limited quantity; therefore, only the richest and/or the most capable individuals are accepted into it. You immediately understand why poor people get the short end of the stick on this matter: not only do they lack sufficient funding to go to public schools, they also lack the encouragement the ability for private tutoring that immediately gives the more privileged a headstart on Academic matters.

On to the subject of private tutoring. If, say, a rich and a poor student are both struggling, the rich one is immediately going to get help in the form of private tutoring. Now, due to the level of money involved in it, only the best teachers hand out suitable private tutoring, which makes their teachings exclusive to the upper classes. Again, this is another example of the disparity between the quality of education for the upper/middle classes and the poor classes.

Subsequently, it is also proven that the average level of public schools in rural and less suburban areas (primarily composed of poor students) are relatively low, compared to the average of the United States.

You understand? All of these factors hurt poor people and prevent them from having equal opportunity.

Now, moving on to a college education. Not only did the whole private school/private tutor thing make it considerably easier for members of the upper class to qualify for high Academics, but the fact is, the most elite colleges in the United States (again, Harvard, Cambridge, M.I.T, etc...) are ridiculously expensive; you have to be a genius in order to get into them without having any sort of financial benefits. And, again, with an entire upper-middle class population educated by elite colleges, why should any high-paying work place (which requires high education) employ the poor people who get a far inferior education when there are far more qualified individuals to be potentially employed?

Again, lack of equal opportunities. Unless they work ten times as hard as the upper classes (and it's an unfair demand), the lower class and people below the poverty line will always have access to far inferior education.

Oh, and did I mention the fact that a large amount of people below the poverty line come from dysfunctional families, or at least ones that have a considerably harder time financing themselves? Single parents, for example. This may call for a high-schooler to engage in potentially illegal activities in order to finance his family, which reduces the amount of time he can spend studying.

Unemployment: I've already touched upon this. A very low percentage of the lower class is unemployed, and an even lower percentage of that can logically be substantiated to be unemployed because of laziness. I don't feel there's much to be said here, aside from the fact that it clearly isn't the chief cause of poverty in the United States. No, the vast majority of people below the poverty line are hard-working Americans whose skill set (reduced due to unequal opportunities, proven above) simply isn't sufficient for a high-paying job. Instead, they perform jobs that are far too 'disgusting' for the average wealthy American to perform.

Racism: The statistics speak for themselves. In comparison to whites, Hispanics and Blacks have a FAR (and I mean FAR) higher percentage of individuals below the poverty line. There are three possible interpretations for this:

A. These people are naturally less capable or intelligent.
B. They use perceived racism as an excuse for being lazy.
C. There are not equal job opportunities in the United States; racism is a very real social problem, even today.

I think we can immediately cross A out on the basis that it is a racist, Nazi-like point of view that has no realistic grounds. Therefore, we're torn between B and C. I personally cross B out on the grounds of the 'survival instinct' mentioned in my first point, which ultimately leaves me with only option C.

This would indicate that racism is largely intact today. Studies prove that America still experiences considerable segregation; black people live with black people, white people live with white people. Now, people should not be forced to live with each other if they don't desire to, but you can clearly see how this harms blacks. Now, you see, since the majority of people below the poverty line are non-whites who live in their own neighborhoods (poor neighborhoods), and it is already a studied fact that public schools in rural and typically poorer areas are of a lesser quality, it can be noted that non-whites get lesser opportunities in life, as a result of poverty and unequal opportunities.

Now, the factor of pure, unadulterated racism exists. I think the fact that considerably more non-Whites live in poverty and are unemployed, aside from backing up my above point, leads me to assume that many business owners would rather hire a white than a, say, a Latino because of their prejudice and fear of different ethnicities.

Overall, I don't think racism is the dominant factor, but is still an existing one.

Talent: This is a very hard one to talk about without sounding like a bigot. Earlier in the debate, I supplied the quote: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.' Here's what it means; certain people simply are capable of contributing less to society, simply because of innate 'talent' and such. But, regardless, the government should supply needy people (who majorly work, but can't contribute the same degree to society because of several factors) with what they need. In essence, weaker individuals should be enforced in order to make things 'fair'. Because, let's face it, some people are simply born more fortunate or skilled than others.

There is, of course, the factor of intellect. There are just as many dumb rich people as there are dumb poor people; the difference is, dumb rich people only need to maintain their current status quo in order to maintain a healthy standard of living, while dumb poor people must overcome societal factors that are drastically stacked up against them in order to overcome their current living conditions. Which one is more difficult?

Some people simply lack the capacity to contribute to society as much as others; this is a very sad, but nontheless existing fact. But I don't believe it is fair that people receive absolutely no compassion because of their misfortune.

In order to equalize factors with the upper classes, the lower class has to work far, far harder than any of them. Why? Misfortune. They didn't choose to be born into poverty; it's only a matter of unluckiness. This is the point where we get into the whole 'fair and 'unfair' thing. I simply don't believe it is fair to force someone to work far harder than somebody else simply because he was born a different way, which is where the government comes in. In order to truly equalize factors and make up for luckiness and unluckiness (to the degree that the government has the capacity of doing), the government must contribute money and directly assist the less fortune. And by 'fortunate' I don't necessarily mean born into poverty- by the less fortunate I also mean people who are born with physical disabilities, intellectual problems (read: morons), and in general these sorts of factors. The weak must be helped. What separates us from animals, despite the 'survival instinct', is our concept of an organized society with morality and norms. The strong must not be allowed to crush the weak; instead, an external factor (in this case, the government) must intervene in order to even the scales between people who are born fortunate and people who aren't.

It is, to some level, fair that people who contribute more to society make more money than those who don't. But you must consider the possibility that it is unfair to tell a certain people, because of a way they are born, that they have to work far harder in order to have equal opportunity.

[Y]ou can't possibly believe that the middle class and the wealthy don't have an access to a higher degree of education than the poor.
[...]
[D]umb poor people must overcome societal factors that are drastically stacked up against them in order to overcome their current living conditions.

I feel like I should point out that even intelligent (or potentially so) poor individuals have greater challenges to face, arguably more so than their less intelligent peers. There is a social stigma attached to high achievers and smart people. "Poor culture" is unquestionably low-brow (at least in America) and discourages learners with a chance to escape from their position from trying. I've heard people say "I'd rather die than have someone think I was smart" (Don't worry, they aren't in any danger of suicide) and the existence of the label "nerd" (with a negative connotation) seems to further illustrate my point.

In America, it is not socially acceptable (at least in the formative years and during High School) to be poor and smart- they are discouraged by both low expectations from teachers and by active deterrence from their peers.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
DS, I do not think that I will be able to continue reasoned discourse with you if you dismiss any evidence that disagrees with you as "liberal bias" and then fail to supply any other authoritative sources. I gave you several articles (admittedly though, they were not all scholarly works) and studies linking poverty and crime, while you gave me your "personal experience". Case studies (like personal experiences) are absolutely insufficient to draw conclusions about national phenomena. Do you have any sources or facts supporting your opinion? We could sit here and expound upon our respective opinions regarding the root cause for poverty until our fingers fall off but we won't get anywhere if you simultaneously reject facts and fail to provide any of your own.

...

With that out of the way, here is a (non-liberal, just look at their opinion/essay page) site linking poverty and crime:

There is a strong statistical link between increasing poverty and increasing crime, and poverty is quite clearly the independent variable.

And here (FROM PRINCETON!), a work on poverty's relation to terrorism mimics this conclusion:

So. What do ya know? Poverty does cause crime. Notice the lack of absolutes there? Poverty doesn't always cause all crime, but it does contribute. What has been proven here is that increases in poverty increase the crime rate.

Yet increased crime also increases poverty! How about that?!

Someone's excited.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Yet increased crime also increases poverty! How about that?!

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Notice the lack of absolutes there? Poverty doesn't always cause all crime, but it does contribute. What has been proven here is that increases in poverty increase the crime rate.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Yet increased crime also increases poverty! How about that?!

You say that like it proves me wrong but I haven't seen anything to suggest that it is true, let alone damning.

Edit:
*Cringe*

Faunus, that is not one of my better sentences. I edited out a qualifier and left in 'always' and 'all crime'.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
The Survival Instinct and Poverty as a Reason for Criminality: This is dually an explanation for why both laziness is not an effective explanation for poverty, and why poverty can potentially cause crime. I don't believe that humans are either fundamentally good or evil- but I do agree that humans are fundamentally animals. One of the most important traits of animals is called 'the survival instinct'; basically, it's the desire to survive at all costs in order to continue one's species and provide for one's descendants. It's a natural impulse, and without it, multiple species (possibly including humanity) would be wiped out.

[/quote]You can afford to be lazy because your parents are privileged. I can afford to be lazy because I'm underage, and my parents, thank god, aren't in a position of poverty. Therefore, this does not trigger the survival instinct, because our choice is not 'work or die'. [/quote]
This is not the point. I don't believe I deserve any of the money I have made over the past few years because I have been blessed with everything and have worked for virtually nothing. That is why I give away as much of it as I can.

And how does this explain crime? People in poverty, who are far more likely to receive a lesser education (more on that later), have only one type of job available to them: the kind of minimum wage, manual job like factory working. Now, I don't think anybody would consciously choose to work in these kinds of jobs (you and I will not survive a second under these conditions), because they are FAR more difficult than intellectual and cerebral jobs. The people who do that are ****ing heroes (and compose the majority of the lower class); they do their absolute best to contribute to society with their personal skillset and education, but that simply isn't sufficient for them to survive. This leads multiple people to crime- the survival instinct dictates that people will go to lengths which you view as 'immoral' or extreme for the purpose of survival, including violent crime, drug dealing, and such. The crime among the lower class (which composes the vast majority of crime in the U.S) is born out of necessity and desperation. This also explains drug addictions: there's a need for escapism from the impossible to live in routine of poverty. This is why drug addicts need to be treated with compassion instead of force; they are, ultimately, victims of an unfair existence. At least most of them are.

The survival instincts both debunks laziness as an explanation and explains poverty as a reason for crime. Eliminate poverty to a large degree, and you deter crime.

But you can't possibly believe that the middle class and the wealthy don't have an access to a higher degree of education than the poor. It begins with the possibilities of public schools and private schools- private schools logically have a higher budget and more money, and therefore attract more capable teachers who teach more prestigious subjects. Indeed, the average level of public schools in the United States is remarkably low compared to the developed world. The problem is, private schools are extremely expensive due to their limited quantity; therefore, only the richest and/or the most capable individuals are accepted into it. You immediately understand why poor people get the short end of the stick on this matter: not only do they lack sufficient funding to go to public schools, they also lack the encouragement the ability for private tutoring that immediately gives the more privileged a headstart on Academic matters.

On to the subject of private tutoring. If, say, a rich and a poor student are both struggling, the rich one is immediately going to get help in the form of private tutoring. Now, due to the level of money involved in it, only the best teachers hand out suitable private tutoring, which makes their teachings exclusive to the upper classes. Again, this is another example of the disparity between the quality of education for the upper/middle classes and the poor classes.

Subsequently, it is also proven that the average level of public schools in rural and less suburban areas (primarily composed of poor students) are relatively low, compared to the average of the United States.

You understand? All of these factors hurt poor people and prevent them from having equal opportunity.

Now, moving on to a college education. Not only did the whole private school/private tutor thing make it considerably easier for members of the upper class to qualify for high Academics, but the fact is, the most elite colleges in the United States (again, Harvard, Cambridge, M.I.T, etc...) are ridiculously expensive; you have to be a genius in order to get into them without having any sort of financial benefits. And, again, with an entire upper-middle class population educated by elite colleges, why should any high-paying work place (which requires high education) employ the poor people who get a far inferior education when there are far more qualified individuals to be potentially employed?

Again, lack of equal opportunities. Unless they work ten times as hard as the upper classes (and it's an unfair demand), the lower class and people below the poverty line will always have access to far inferior education.

Oh, and did I mention the fact that a large amount of people below the poverty line come from dysfunctional families, or at least ones that have a considerably harder time financing themselves? Single parents, for example. This may call for a high-schooler to engage in potentially illegal activities in order to finance his family, which reduces the amount of time he can spend studying. [/B]

As usual, you list specific cases in order to make a general decision.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
In America, it is not socially acceptable (at least in the formative years and during High School) to be [...] smart-