|
Haven't seen that exact one before (seriously, where do these people get the funds for all these "surveys"?) but that's the kind of thing I was thinking about, yeah.
Wow, that's quite a jump. One's religious/hobby/political affiliation decisions aren't something that one can be "saved" from.
There's one study that shows some people disagree with you.
Scary, isn't it?
Yeah. Shame it doesn't actually support the point in the slightest, but apart from that a good link. You did notice the part where they specifically said this does not mean it's incorrect or pathological, right?
Incidentally, before going for the outrage, try reading the actual paper rather than the newspaper version. Reporters do not understand science and tend to report it in the most sensationalist way possible. The original usually makes a much more nuanced and limited case than the news reports.
EDIT: +1 to the pony's point. A classic example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
In particular, I believe the ranks of the Worthy Poor vastly outweigh the ranks of the Unworthy Poor, and that it's a good allocation of resources to help the former even if it means the later get a free ride. In a perfect world, we would be able to differentiate the two groups easily and perfectly. Sadly, we don't live in that world, so I think we need to ask how we make the world we live in better. Railing against the strawman of the Unworthy Poor is an emotional exercise in self-righteousness, I can't deny that it feels good, but I also can't help but doubt that it is the most effective strategy to deal with the problems that stem from poverty.
You know what I *hate* about you, Sebastian? Whenever I think myself articulate, you come along and knock me down a peg. ;-)
I literally couldn't have said it better myself.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Haven't seen that exact one before (seriously, where do these people get the funds for all these "surveys"?) but that's the kind of thing I was thinking about, yeah.
Wow, that's quite a jump. One's religious/hobby/political affiliation decisions aren't something that one can be "saved" from.
There's one study that shows some people disagree with you.
Scary, isn't it?
I think I read that one. Wasn't that the one that showed people with conservative values were more likely to flinch when shown pictures of spiders?
EDIT: Just saw the link Paul posted. Not the same one, I think. Thanks for the link, Paul.
Now, as for why government should fund research that demonstrated connections between our perceptions and our behaviors, I bet that the many advertising departments would find that report very interesting. It would add to a growing body of knowledge about what makes people tick. I'm sure that there are other government intelligence agencies that would also find this interesting. You're right. We shouldn't fund research that could be useful to business or the CIA.
Yeah. Shame it doesn't actually support the point in the slightest, but apart from that a good link. You did notice the part where they specifically said this does not mean it's incorrect or pathological, right?Incidentally, before going for the outrage, try reading the actual paper rather than the newspaper version. Reporters do not understand science and tend to report it in the most sensationalist way possible. The original usually makes a much more nuanced and limited case than the news reports.
*SNIP*
I have to agree with Paul here; I don't see anyone suggesting coercion. It looks to me more like some people just don't care for the conclusions.
|
|
1. While it is impossible (and undesirable) to ensure equality of outcome, society should strive for equality of opportunity.
2. No one, no matter how lazy or inept, should starve to death. No one should be denied access to basic shelter, or clean water.
3. No one, no matter their sexual orientation, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), race, or culture, should be denied the rights afforded to other citizens.
4. We're all people. We aren't better because of where we are from, or what god we believe in. We have no right to force others to our way of thinking through military or economic coercion.
5. Free markets are wonderful and useful, but they aren't perfect. Their proper operation sometimes requires circumstances that do not exist in the real world, therefore not everything can be fixed by "letting the market handle it."
6. Fundamentalism of all stripes is evil. The most common type of fundamentalism in the modern world is religious.
7. Beware anyone who seeks to dehumanize others.
8. There are very few absolutes. Though humans like to think that way, most things in the real world just aren't that simple. Beware oversimplification and binary thinking.
9. Violence is the last resort; sometimes the last resort is necessary. Usually it isn't.
10. Knowledge is knowing what you don't know. If the other guy's position seems stupid to you, you probably don't understand it.
I reserve the right to add more later. :)
I agree with all of this.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yeah. Shame it doesn't actually support the point in the slightest, but apart from that a good link. You did notice the part where they specifically said this does not mean it's incorrect or pathological, right?
Incidentally, before going for the outrage, try reading the actual paper rather than the newspaper version. Reporters do not understand science and tend to report it in the most sensationalist way possible. The original usually makes a much more nuanced and limited case than the news reports.
EDIT: +1 to the pony's point. A classic example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
Paul,
The point of the matter I was making (first link I could find) is that some people will always think that the reason people disagree with them is that they need to be saved from themselves.
I'd heard many times as a tenent of the right, "Conservatives think Liberals are misguided. Liberals think Conservatives are evil." Whether there is truth in that or not, we're not that far removed from trying electroshock therapy to 'cure' gays (or the contempt for organization/people who try to be 'ex-gay'), breaking left handed people, or steralizing the poor so that the gene pool would improve.
Heck, look at the contempt heaped on Sarah Palin, even though she was a successful Governour of our largest state! You can disagree with whether she had the experience to be the VP but people calling her stupid, the obscenity laced T-shirts and hanging in effigy was just insane.
|
|
It seems like a lot of people draw a distinction though between the Worthy Poor (those who can't work for whatever reason we find to be acceptable or are using the social ladder appropriately to move upward and just need some assistance) and the Unworthy Poor (those who can't work because they're lazy). Which leads me to wonder, how do we separate out the two groups from each other, particularly using the incapable tools of the government. What is the cost of separating out the two groups? Is it greater than the cost of just treating them all the same and allowing the Unworthy Poor to reap the benefits of the system to reach as many of the Worthy Poor as possible?A lot of this discussion turns on the question of what people "should" do. They "should" work if they are able. They "should" have incentives to work. I agree that this is what "should" happen, but that and a quarter will get you a phone call. I prefer to ask "what can we do to get people to behave as we think they 'should' (assuming, of course, we can even agree on what they 'should' do)." I definitely think economic rewards are a tool in the toolbox to get people to work, but I don't think they are the only tool, or that such tool can't be employed to better effect. In particular, I believe the ranks of the Worthy Poor vastly outweigh the ranks of the Unworthy Poor, and that it's a good allocation of resources to help the former even if it means the later get a free ride. In a perfect world, we would be able to differentiate the two groups easily and...
This. Amazingly written. Insightful. Intelligent. Compassionate. I am proud of you Sebastian.
It is so easy to find reasons why we shouldn't have to spend our own hard-earned money on others who are less fortunate, less lucky than us. But it makes us better people when we stop looking at our own personal cost and embrace doing the right thing by helping our fellow man. Sorry you didn't get that 58-inch flatscreen TV; but maybe your neighbor's starving kids get some gruel to eat. You have to wonder about the person that thinks this is a wrong turn of events. It's selfish at the best, borderline evil at the worst.
What is the cost of separating out the two groups? Is it greater than the cost of just treating them all the same and allowing the Unworthy Poor to reap the benefits of the system to reach as many of the Worthy Poor as possible?
My (and I think other peoples) fear is that its not a static cost, that the cost will increase over time, as by rewarding negative behavior you drive more people into that lifestyle. They see no cost to it and only benefit. By associating a "cost" to the lifestyle, that being a negative social status, some will choose to do whatever is necessary to avoid that "cost." When you associate shame and guilt to the public dole, those who have self-respect will avoid the public dole as they feel the shame and guilt at accepting the charity of others... they feel that they have failed somehow. If you progressively remove that social discouragement, the fear is that more people will become even more comfortable with that lifestyle. At least, that's how I see it. Its really the same thing with prostitution and drugs. While I perhaps don't see much problem with either, by keeping them illegal it might discourage some from taking either one of those activities up, for fear of the criminal repercussions. If they were made legal then suddenly people would start seeing the former as an acceptable, normal career path, and the latter as an acceptable, normal form of entertainment. Certainly that is another side-discussion, but the concept is the same. Leave the social negative associated with it in order to discourage its adoption by the common member of society. Sure you will still have people taking advantage of the system, those who have no shame or guilt, but hopefully it will be less than if you just give up and start handing money out willy-nilly to whomever just decides they don't want to work anymore.
A lot of this discussion turns on the question of what people "should" do.
All I ask is that people make every effort to provide for themselves. If you choose not to, don't ask me to cover for you.
In particular, I believe the ranks of the Worthy Poor vastly outweigh the ranks of the Unworthy Poor, and that it's a good allocation of resources to help the former even if it means the later get a free ride.
I agree, the "worthy poor" probably outnumbers the "unworthy poor" by a large margin, but I do not choose to give up and just give everyone who wants one a check, completely disregarding what they do with that check. I'd like there to be some form of controls or system that minimizes abuse.
Railing against the strawman of the Unworthy Poor is an emotional exercise in self-righteousness, I can't deny that it feels good, but I also can't help but doubt that it is the most effective strategy to deal with the problems that stem from poverty.
I don't think I "rail against the strawman of the unworthy poor" in order to feel better or to feel self righteous. All I want is to find that fine line where you minimize abuse while at the same time aiding those truly in need get themselves out of the hole. I don't favor throwing my hands up in the air and just saying "screw it, its too hard, just give everyone money!"
That, to me, seems like a recipe for making things worse, not better.
Paul,The point of the matter I was making (first link I could find) is that some people will always think that the reason people disagree with them is that they need to be saved from themselves.
I'd heard many times as a tenent of the right, "Conservatives think Liberals are misguided. Liberals think Conservatives are evil." Whether there is truth in that or not, we're not that far removed from trying electroshock therapy to 'cure' gays (or the contempt for organization/people who try to be 'ex-gay'), breaking left handed people, or steralizing the poor so that the gene pool would improve.
Heck, look at the contempt heaped on Sarah Palin, even though she was a successful Governour of our largest state! You can disagree with whether she had the experience to be the VP but people calling her stupid, the obscenity laced T-shirts and hanging in effigy was just insane.
Insane? I don't think so. In extremely poor taste (especially that last bit)? No doubt.
In my opinion, however, the line isn't crossed until violence or coercion is employed. So, while I hate hearing about people burning Palin (or Pelosi, for that matter) in effigy, I can't equate it to electrocuting homosexuals or forced sterilization. YMMV.
|
|
Heck, look at the contempt heaped on Sarah Palin, even though she was a successful Governour of our largest state! You can disagree with whether she had the experience to be the VP but people calling her stupid, the obscenity laced T-shirts and hanging in effigy was just insane.
How do you define successful governor? She did quit the job after all, leaving a crapload of problems behind. Why? So she could post her thoughts on Facebook and make lots of money selling books.
Since I did it for the conservative thread, I'll do it here...Anyone want to make a Liberal thread?
1) I wholeheartedly agree with the good will in this statement, but you have to define what you mean by "society".
2) No problem with the second part, a few with the first. Actions have consequences, and as messed up as our country is right now, few are in danger of death via starvation. Perhaps a basic subsistence package is what you're referring to here?
3) Okay.
4) Okay.
5) Wholeheartedly agree with the economic philosophies mentioned here, but it's a little vague. Perhaps this should be edited to include when the government will get involved with the economy and how?
6) Okay, but with a meh. There are two major stereotypes listed here, although they are founded in some truth. It might be better to come up with a statement regarding your beliefs on religion as opposed to a general denouncement.
7) Okay.
8) Okay, with a good warning in there. One I wish my mother(and myself) thought of when I lived in PA.
9) Okay.
10) Okay.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Insane? I don't think so. In extremely poor taste (especially that last bit)? No doubt.In my opinion, however, the line isn't crossed until violence or coercion is employed. So, while I hate hearing about people burning Palin (or Pelosi, for that matter) in effigy, I can't equate it to electrocuting homosexuals or forced sterilization. YMMV.
Have to read that when I get home, cursed filter.
But we institutionalize people all the time 'for their own good'. Courts declare people 'danger to themselves'
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
How do you define successful governor? She did quit the job after all, leaving a crapload of problems behind. Why? So she could post her thoughts on Facebook and make lots of money selling books.
Heck, look at the contempt heaped on Sarah Palin, even though she was a successful Governour of our largest state! You can disagree with whether she had the experience to be the VP but people calling her stupid, the obscenity laced T-shirts and hanging in effigy was just insane.
She couldn't do the job, frivilous ethics charges were bankrupting her and the state. She had reached all the goals she worked towards in her administration.
Plus how can you concentrate when you have late night talk show hosts making jokes about your teenage daughter being raped?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
My (and I think other peoples) fear is that its not a static cost, that the cost will increase over time, as by rewarding negative behavior you drive more people into that lifestyle. They see no cost to it and only benefit. By associating a "cost" to the lifestyle, that being a negative social status, some will choose to do whatever is necessary to avoid that "cost." When you associate shame and guilt to the public dole, those who have self-respect will avoid the public dole as they feel the shame and guilt at accepting the charity of others... they feel that they have failed somehow. If you progressively remove that social discouragement, the fear is that more people will become even more comfortable with that lifestyle. At least, that's how I see it. Its really the same thing with prostitution and drugs. While I perhaps don't see much problem with either, by keeping them illegal it might discourage some from taking either one of those activities up, for fear of the criminal repercussions. If they were made legal then suddenly people would start seeing the former as an acceptable, normal career path, and the latter as an acceptable, normal form of entertainment. Certainly that is another side-discussion, but the concept is the same. Leave the social negative associated with it in order to discourage its adoption by the common member of society. Sure you will still have people taking advantage of the system, those who have no shame or guilt, but hopefully it will be less than if you just give up and start handing money out willy-nilly to whomever just decides they don't want to work anymore.
I am strongly inclined to agree, because I definitely feel like stigma is an important tool and something that should not be lightly discarded. I also agree that the risk of a spiral in behavior is significant, and is something that needs to be monitored and kept in check.
But, I'm also not sure how effective stigma is or how much stigma would be lost under a different incentive regime. I don't think I have enough information to answer the question with any amount of certainty, and that pitching it to my gut or my anecdotal experience doesn't do that question any justice.
I agree, the "worthy poor" probably outnumbers the "unworthy poor" by a large margin, but I do not choose to give up and just give everyone who wants one a check, completely disregarding what they do with that check. I'd like there to be some form of controls or system that minimizes abuse.
I agree. Controls would need to be in place and the benefits need to outweigh the costs. It's a stupid idea to put in a system that destroys more resources than it creates. But, again, if the costs of monitoring what people do with that check is greater than the benefit of giving them checks and letting them do whatever they want with them then you have exactly such a system - it destroys more resources than it creates. And again, I'm not assuming that such a system would work, I'm just open to the possibility that it might and that the cost of the Unworthy Poor freeriding might be less than the benefit from helping the Worthy Poor (or even from keeping the Unworthy Poor from becoming the Evil Criminal).
I don't think I "rail against the strawman of the unworthy poor" in order to feel better or to feel self righteous. All I want is to find that fine line where you minimize abuse while at the same time aiding those truly in need get themselves out of the hole. I don't favor throwing my hands up in the air and just saying "screw it, its too hard, just give everyone money!"
That, to me, seems like a recipe for making things worse, not better.
It might be a recipe for making things worse. It might not. I don't have the answers, I just think we need to be open to asking the questions. Statements like "people who choose not to work shouldn't get any of my money" are useless. People shouldn't commit crimes. They shouldn't be mean. People do choose not to work. They do commit crimes. They are mean. We can't change human nature, we can just try and craft a system that guides individual humans towards making the choices we would prefer. That system may require us to accept a certain number of Unworthy Poor, and as long as that option is off the table (which, presumably it is with a statement like "people who choose not to work shouldn't get any of my money"), we're potentially missing out on a system that helps more than it hurts.
Insane? I don't think so. In extremely poor taste (especially that last bit)? No doubt.In my opinion, however, the line isn't crossed until violence or coercion is employed. So, while I hate hearing about people burning Palin (or Pelosi, for that matter) in effigy, I can't equate it to electrocuting homosexuals or forced sterilization. YMMV.
Have to read that when I get home, cursed filter.
But we institutionalize people all the time 'for their own good'. Courts declare people 'danger to themselves'
Indeed. In some cases (actual mental illness), those things can be necessary. But attempts to pass off someone's beliefs or sexual orientation as mental illness are to be vigilantly guarded against. When they start deciding to lock up the conservatives (or Christians, or Atheists, etc.), I'll pick up a rifle (though being a liberal weenie someone will have to teach me how to use it =P).*
* I don't want to derail the thread, so for the record: Though I do not choose to own a gun, I do not begrudge those that do own weapons. The Constitution is pretty clear on the right to bear arms, and the only lawful way to change that is to amend the Constitution. Can't muster the votes? Too bad, the law stays as it is.
|
|
How do you define successful governor? She did quit the job after all, leaving a crapload of problems behind. Why? So she could post her thoughts on Facebook and make lots of money selling books.
Heck, look at the contempt heaped on Sarah Palin, even though she was a successful Governour of our largest state! You can disagree with whether she had the experience to be the VP but people calling her stupid, the obscenity laced T-shirts and hanging in effigy was just insane.She couldn't do the job, frivilous ethics charges were bankrupting her and the state. She had reached all the goals she worked towards in her administration.
Plus how can you concentrate when you have late night talk show hosts making jokes about your teenage daughter being raped?
I agree that the Letterman joke was in bad taste (even though he was actually referring to Bristol, not the underage one that everyone assumed he was talking about). But he did apologize for it.
As far as the ethics violations, who says they were frivolous? I believe the charges were brought up by members of her own party, weren't they? If it had been Democrats, I could believe the frivolous claim; but why would Republicans eat one of their own unless there was some fire behind the smoke?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As far as the ethics violations, who says they were frivolous? I believe the charges were brought up by members of her own party, weren't they? If it had been Democrats, I could believe the frivolous claim; but why would Republicans eat one of their own unless there was some fire behind the smoke?
Most were brought up by one person, and the court system said they were without merit, all 17 brought up when she left office.
*SNIP*
She couldn't do the job, frivilous ethics charges were bankrupting her and the state. She had reached all the goals she worked towards in her administration. *SNIP*
*SNIP*
Most were brought up by one person, and the court system said they were without merit, all 17 brought up when she left office*
*SNIP*
But sure the seventeen that were brought up when she left office (and then dismissed) weren't the same ones that were responsible for her leaving office in the first place, correct? What about those?
(I don't know anything about the charges, nor do I have an opinion of her guilt. Your statements just don't seem to jibe, or I'm misunderstanding you).
* Emphasis mine.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
[Indeed. In some cases (actual mental illness), those things can be necessary. But attempts to pass off someone's beliefs or sexual orientation as mental illness are to be vigilantly guarded against. When they start deciding to lock up the conservatives (or Christians, or Atheists, etc.), I'll pick up a rifle (though being a liberal weenie someone will have to teach me how to use it =P).*
* I don't want to derail the thread, so for the record: Though I do not choose to own a gun, I do not begrudge those that do own weapons. The Constitution is pretty clear on the right to bear arms, and the only lawful way to change that is to amend the Constitution. Can't muster the votes? Too bad, the law stays as it is.
Oh I agree, but it's less than 20-30 years ago that we ~were~ doing such things. and even worse 60 years ago.
What about the right to arm bears? ;-)
[Indeed. In some cases (actual mental illness), those things can be necessary. But attempts to pass off someone's beliefs or sexual orientation as mental illness are to be vigilantly guarded against. When they start deciding to lock up the conservatives (or Christians, or Atheists, etc.), I'll pick up a rifle (though being a liberal weenie someone will have to teach me how to use it =P).*
* I don't want to derail the thread, so for the record: Though I do not choose to own a gun, I do not begrudge those that do own weapons. The Constitution is pretty clear on the right to bear arms, and the only lawful way to change that is to amend the Constitution. Can't muster the votes? Too bad, the law stays as it is.
Oh I agree, but it's less than 20-30 years ago that we ~were~ doing such things. and even worse 60 years ago.
What about the right to arm bears? ;-)
I thought everyone had a right to hang a pair of bear arms up in their home. What's so hard to understand about that?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
*SNIP*
She couldn't do the job, frivilous ethics charges were bankrupting her and the state. She had reached all the goals she worked towards in her administration. *SNIP**SNIP*
Most were brought up by one person, and the court system said they were without merit, all 17 brought up when she left office*
*SNIP*But sure the seventeen that were brought up when she left office (and then dismissed) weren't the same ones that were responsible for her leaving office in the first place, correct? What about those?
(I don't know anything about the charges, nor do I have an opinion of her guilt. Your statements just don't seem to jibe, or I'm misunderstanding you).
* Emphasis mine.
Bad writing on my part. There were 17 seperate complaints filed by the time she left. All 17 had been dismissed, but they were a drain on the time and resources of both the Palin family and Alaska.
Bad writing on my part. There were 17 seperate complaints filed by the time she left. All 17 had been dismissed, but they were a drain on the time and resources of both the Palin family and Alaska.
Ok, I see what you meant now. Thanks.
Personally, though I vehemently dislike the idea of Palin serving in national public office, I don't care who brought the charges...no one should be forced out of a job by unproven allegations. I'm not saying that's what happened with Palin; I don't know for sure. But if the charges didn't stick, it sure does look that way, doesn't it?
Innocent until proven guilty.
I am impressed by how articulate and civil this discussion has been on both sides of the aisle. It's very refreshing reading.
Bugley, you and I agree on these principles more than you might think. It just seems we disagree more on how to preserve/ensure/enforce them.
Either way, I want to have your love child, you big, sexy man, you.
Said the bovine as he hoofed away at the keyboard....Either way, I want to have your love child, you big, sexy man, you.You know that that avatar is an actual portrait of Bugleyman, right?
*shifty eyes*
|
|
I think there was a question here somewhere about why the Republican party is "attacking" its own. The reason, IMHO, is because there are now two schools of Republican thought: The Neoconservative (Bush, McCain, Giuliani), and the Paleoconservative (Palin, Paul), and right now the Republican party is governed by the Neoconservatives. Paleoconservatives have values similar to the Libertarian party, and they are the ones who initiated the Tea Parties during the Bush Administration in protest of the bailouts and other economic disasters. Palin and (Dare I say it) Beck are attempting to spearhead the Paleoconservative moment while still paying lipservice to the Neocons, when in truth they are two different movements. For example, in Kentucky, Senatorial Republican Candidate Rand Paul (with roughly 34% of the polls, and ahead of the other Republican candidate for their primary) has not received the backing of the National Republican party.
I know this is unrelated to the topic, so apologies for that.
Paleoconservatives have values similar to the Libertarian party, and they are the ones who initiated the Tea Parties during the Bush Administration in protest of the bailouts and other economic disasters. Palin and (Dare I say it) Beck are attempting to spearhead the Paleoconservative moment...
I'm not clear fail how striving for a state-mandated religion (Palin, Beck) is a "libertarian" or even paleoconservative ideal. To me, it's about as socially authoritarian as one gets -- and the exact opposite of what people like Jefferson and Madison espoused.
Paleoconservatives have values similar to the Libertarian party, and they are the ones who initiated the Tea Parties during the Bush Administration in protest of the bailouts and other economic disasters. Palin and (Dare I say it) Beck are attempting to spearhead the Paleoconservative moment...I'm not clear fail how striving for a state-mandated religion (Palin, Beck) is a "libertarian" or even paleoconservative ideal. To me, it's about as socially authoritarian as one gets -- and the exact opposite of what people like Jefferson and Madison espoused.
I can't speak for Beck, I don't listen to radio, but I don't think I've ever heard that one from Palin. A lot of scaremongering about it from the newspapers yes, but never actually heard her say it. Source?
They should still get food and water, but they should be basics. If they do not produce honest fruits of labor according to their capabilities, then they shouldn't be getting the prime rib but rather the rump roast. ;)
What if they turn around and sell the rump roast for drug money and then still complain they are starving?
I have a family relation who is doing exactly this. He takes food stamps and buys food for friends at 1/2 price to them and then uses the cash for drug money. Then he begs for food.
If you wanted to keep enabling this cycle out of your own pocket, then my opinion that it is only causing harm to both you and him is irrelevant. But I find that money is taken out of strangers pockets for this purpose to be pretty outrageous.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Is there anyone in this thread who is actually supporting welfare dependency and welfare abuse? Continually mentioning friends of relatives who abuse social assistance is a nice side-step but I'm sure the vast majority of social assistance recipients don't.
Except for those who don't believe in the government providing any social assistance for any reason, the question should be how can appropriate levels of assistance be provided to ensure that it is a temporary measure.
I can't speak for Beck, I don't listen to radio, but I don't think I've ever heard that one from Palin. A lot of scaremongering about it from the newspapers yes, but never actually heard her say it. Source?Paleoconservatives have values similar to the Libertarian party, and they are the ones who initiated the Tea Parties during the Bush Administration in protest of the bailouts and other economic disasters. Palin and (Dare I say it) Beck are attempting to spearhead the Paleoconservative moment...I'm not clear fail how striving for a state-mandated religion (Palin, Beck) is a "libertarian" or even paleoconservative ideal. To me, it's about as socially authoritarian as one gets -- and the exact opposite of what people like Jefferson and Madison espoused.
Well, the source might be someone interpreting what they mean as something like that. But, basically you are correct in that it is fear mongering by people.
A lot of scaremongering about it from the newspapers yes, but never actually heard her say it. Source?
LINK.
I picked this one because it's a small local source rather than being "mainstream evil liberal media" (any major newspaper), which would of course be dismissed. I'm looking mostly at her quotes and stances, not at the article's interpretation of them. What I see is a clear indication that she sees a need to make sure her personal religious views on issues are the ones enshrined by law.|
|
They should still get food and water, but they should be basics. If they do not produce honest fruits of labor according to their capabilities, then they shouldn't be getting the prime rib but rather the rump roast. ;)What if they turn around and sell the rump roast for drug money and then still complain they are starving?
I have a family relation who is doing exactly this. He takes food stamps and buys food for friends at 1/2 price to them and then uses the cash for drug money. Then he begs for food.
If you wanted to keep enabling this cycle out of your own pocket, then my opinion that it is only causing harm to both you and him is irrelevant. But I find that money is taken out of strangers pockets for this purpose to be pretty outrageous.
There will always be bad seeds; people who take advantage of the good graces of others. Should we punish the truly needy for the sins of those that aren't? What is worse: killing 1 innocent man or allowing 10 guilty men to escape the guillotine? This is the question that defines the two sides of this issue. I think that allowing one innocent to die is by far the greater of two evils.
I feel it is wrong to allow ANYONE to starve and if it isn't the job of our government to intervene and take care of its own; whose is it? It is easy to come up with reasons to justify allowing people to starve; it is also selfishness, pure and simple. It amazes me the lengths that people will go to in order to reconcile their selfish desires with what should feel like inhumane behavior. Wrong is wrong folks, and letting a fellow human being suffer the most basic of needs because they may or may not be taking advantage of the situation is plain wrong.
I'll go back to lurking now, but I thought it might be interesting to widen the discussion on that element of the OP's point to include a "government vs. charitable organization" comparison on who's better-suited to minister to those living without the basic necessities of life. Not everyone in society wants their hard-earned gains in life to be redistributed to those who seemingly intend to live off such handouts rather than have the courage to work their way out of their lot in life. When governments force successful citizens to support such people (through taxation), that's what stirs up class warfare. On the flip side, though, charitable organizations take voluntary donations from those who have both the means and the will to give to these causes.To me, the crux of the conflict is the belief that poor people "intend to live off such handouts rather than have the courage to work their way out of their lot in life." Of course, anyone who has actually been in this situation knows better.
I grew up extremely poor. My family collected food stamps, I ate government surplus cheese and rice. There were times when I would have gone hungry without such programs, and yet my family wasn't lazy. They made some bad choices, but they worked A LOT. Poor people who choose to remain poor out of laziness might exist, but I've never met them. Instead, I've met a lot of people born into particularly bad circumstances, treated unfairly, and just plain exploited for the benefit of people thousands of times as wealthy.
A tiny sliver of us are so fantastically rich that we could never, ever spend our wealth, while others live on the verge of starvation. Most of us muddle on in between. This is not a new situation. What is new is that the fantastically rich have somehow managed to convince a good chunk of the working class that the real enemy is the extremely poor group at the bottom! "Get mad at that guy over there, who is "leeching" off you with his $200 a month food stamp...
I grew up poor too. There were times when we had food stamps, most notably in the period of time following my father's heart failure. I can also remember being so happy when I had five T-shirts and was able to go to school for a whole week without wearing the same shirt twice. This was to go with my pair of shoes and two pair of pants. It was only later that I realized just how poor our family really was. Before my brother Sam moved out for college when I was three, we had two boys, three girls, and my parents in a small three bedroom house. my mother's first husband (before being killed in a work accident) added the second bedroom and closed in the attic to make the third along with a sewing room upstairs. did I mention that my dad was an alcoholic?
I know what it means to grow up poor. I only later realized how much less I had thann all my friends and classmates.
I worked a minimum wage job too and saw how others lived who did so. Some would struggle and skimp to make ends meet. Others would blow their money on alcohol and pot clothes and CDs. I also worked as a manager at a fast food restaurant and saw first hand the difficulties of keeping people on staff. People would come in and apply for a job, work long enough to be eligible for welfare (part of what was introduced during the Clinton years, a good thing), and then quit. It was more money for them to collect from the government instead of working so they did that instead. when I was in high school there was a great problem with food stamps in my home state. There was an organized chain of laundering them. People would sell them for a reduced cash value to buy alcohol, tobacco, and various drugs. People would redeem back and forth at varying rates to make a profit and ended up buying cars and houses with said profits.
Do people receive aid that need it? Yes. But, don't belittle the scale of those who abuse it. Don't pretend that it isn't common. It is. I assure you from witnessing it again and again and seeing its evidence everywhere such as those whoreceive it that really do live higher than I did when I was very poor.
Also, about this:
" Instead, I've met a lot of people born into particularly bad circumstances, treated unfairly, and just plain exploited for the benefit of people thousands of times as wealthy."
Put your money where your mouth is and show that this in itself is as common as you propose that it is. Show just how these people are being "exploited". Some cases may be true but I doubt it is true to the extent that you appear to be claiming.
Also, out of curiousity, what does everyone here really do for the poor and needy? How much money (is it enough to hurt and is it regular) do you donate on a regular basis? How much time do you spend giving hands on aid to the poor of your communities if you think you don't have the money? This is both for those who think the government should do it as well as those who think that charity is better than the government.
What do I do? I give money out of every paycheck to the Wounded Warrior Project (I think that is the correct name), American Red Cross, and a couple of groups that work in Africa giving medical treatment (infectious diseases and specifically AIDS and malaria) and working for microenterprise development for women in need of jobs.
What do I need to do? I need to do hands on help for my community such as working for the local food bank or helping with charities of the church just down the road. I just moved and have not worked this out yet.
What about everyone else?
I think I fall short in walking the walk right now. What do you do?
@ DMCHUCKY69
Since wrong is wrong, it is YOUR responsibility. What do YOU do? Money and hands on. Put in on the table.
Also, out of curiousity, what does everyone here really do for the poor and needy? How much money (is it enough to hurt and is it regular) do you donate on a regular basis? How much time do you spend giving hands on aid to the poor of your communities if you think you don't have the money? This is both for those who think the government should do it as well as those who think that charity is better than the government.
I don't do much really, other than donate garbage bags full of clothes and toys on a semi-monthly basis to the local salvation army. When my daughters grow out of their clothes or tire of playing with a toy it gets bagged up for good will. I should be getting a slip of paper saying an estimated value of the donated goods but I never do just because its more of a pain than its worth. You have to wait for the guy to finish unloading stuff then he asks you your name etc, fills out the slip with a dollar amount... etc just so you can claim it on your taxes. In the end I just say skip it and consider it my good deed.
I also donate $3 every few paychecks to a small local charity just so I can wear jeans on a friday at work. Its not because I want to give to charity, just because I'd like to wear jeans that day and that's the deal.
What do I do? I give money out of every paycheck to the Wounded Warrior Project (I think that is the correct name), American Red Cross,...
Oh yeah I forgot, I do give blood every time they come around to my office. I'm more than happy to do it too.
...and a couple of groups that work in Africa giving medical treatment (infectious diseases and specifically AIDS and malaria) and working for microenterprise development for women in need of jobs.
What do I need to do? I need to do hands on help for my community such as working for the local food bank or helping with charities of the church just down the road. I just moved and have not worked this out yet.
What about everyone else?
I think I fall short in walking the walk right now. What do you do?
Dude I think you are doing more than your fair share. You certainly do far more than I. I guess I'm just not as charitable as you. I'd rather be gaming or working on my campaign world and I don't have the money to be giving it away to others so pretty much it stays with me or goes into buying clothes or other necessities for a wife and three daughters ages 7-15.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
A lot of scaremongering about it from the newspapers yes, but never actually heard her say it. Source?LINK.
I picked this one because it's a small local source rather than being "mainstream evil liberal media" (any major newspaper), which would of course be dismissed. I'm looking mostly at her quotes and stances, not at the article's interpretation of them. What I see is a clear indication that she sees a need to make sure her personal religious views on issues are the ones enshrined by law.
I'd call that a bit reaching to say she wants a national religion, to say the least. And there's a lack of Beck in there.
It would be like me arguing that Barack Obama is arguing for Islam as a national religion when he says we're the 4th largest Muslim nation.
|
|
A lot of scaremongering about it from the newspapers yes, but never actually heard her say it. Source?LINK.
I picked this one because it's a small local source rather than being "mainstream evil liberal media" (any major newspaper), which would of course be dismissed. I'm looking mostly at her quotes and stances, not at the article's interpretation of them. What I see is a clear indication that she sees a need to make sure her personal religious views on issues are the ones enshrined by law.I'd call that a bit reaching to say she wants a national religion, to say the least. And there's a lack of Beck in there.
It would be like me arguing that Barack Obama is arguing for Islam as a national religion when he says we're the 4th largest Muslim nation.
You missed the part about teaching creationism (which is not scientific) in science class. I think that's a big part of Kirth's problem with her. Creationism, Itenlligent Design, Goddidit or whatever it's changed its name to this week is not a science, it's a crudely and thinly disguised religious argument. Pushing that into a science class is a problem with pushing your religion, I'm afraid.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You missed the part about teaching creationism (which is not scientific) in science class. I think that's a big part of Kirth's problem with her. Creationism, Itenlligent Design, Goddidit or whatever it's changed its name to this week is not a science, it's a crudely and thinly disguised religious argument. Pushing that into a science class is a problem with pushing your religion, I'm afraid.
<snark>We teach global warming in schools, don't we?</snark>
More seriously, I don't have as much of a problem touching on other theories, if the school board aproves the ciriculla (sp?)
The only problem I have with ID vs Evolution is Evolution is taught as fact, when it does have its own flaws.
I'd call that a bit reaching to say she wants a national religion, to say the least. And there's a lack of Beck in there.
Creationism in schools -> Public education dictated by religious belief.
Ban on stem cell research -> Scientific research dictated by religious belief.Ban on all abortion -> Social issues dictated to citizens by religious belief.
Ban all gay marriage and unions -> Social issues dictated to citizens by religious belief.
Creationism is my biggest beef, because it's factually incorrect, vs. an opinion. But the others don't sit well with me, either. An amendment outlawing gay civil unions is nothing but a religious stance made into law; it has no secular reason whatsoever.
Murder is against the Commandments, but it also undermines any society, made of people of any religion. Laws against it are needed from both a religious and secular point of view. On the other hand, banning stem cell research hurts a secular society by undermining cancer research, despite its religious appeal.
You missed the part about teaching creationism (which is not scientific) in science class. I think that's a big part of Kirth's problem with her. Creationism, Itenlligent Design, Goddidit or whatever it's changed its name to this week is not a science, it's a crudely and thinly disguised religious argument. Pushing that into a science class is a problem with pushing your religion, I'm afraid.<snark>We teach global warming in schools, don't we?</snark>
More seriously, I don't have as much of a problem touching on other theories, if the school board aproves the ciriculla (sp?)
The only problem I have with ID vs Evolution is Evolution is taught as fact, when it does have its own flaws.
Beat me to it.
|
|
Beat me to it.
You missed the part about teaching creationism (which is not scientific) in science class. I think that's a big part of Kirth's problem with her. Creationism, Itenlligent Design, Goddidit or whatever it's changed its name to this week is not a science, it's a crudely and thinly disguised religious argument. Pushing that into a science class is a problem with pushing your religion, I'm afraid.<snark>We teach global warming in schools, don't we?</snark>
More seriously, I don't have as much of a problem touching on other theories, if the school board aproves the ciriculla (sp?)
The only problem I have with ID vs Evolution is Evolution is taught as fact, when it does have its own flaws.
And if you want to discuss evolution and creationism and why one's a science, despite flaws, and one isn't, I'll be happy to, but in another thread as we'll be taking this one waaaaaay off-topic.
1. More seriously, I don't have as much of a problem touching on other theories, if the school board aproves the ciriculla (sp?)
2. The only problem I have with ID vs Evolution is Evolution is taught as fact, when it does have its own flaws.
1. ID is not a theory, nor is creationism. I've posted pages on what a theory actually is, but I give up -- our schools fail to teach the distinction to children, and I've failed to teach it to anyone here.
2. Life has evolved, and continues to do so. That's fact -- unless God created and artistically arranged the entire fossil record, the DNA, the physiology, and the geographical distribution of species simply to fool us.* That it evolved by means of natural selection is a theory.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'd call that a bit reaching to say she wants a national religion, to say the least. And there's a lack of Beck in there.Creationism in schools -> Public education dictated by religious belief.
Ban on stem cell research -> Scientific research dictated by religious belief.
Ban on all abortion -> Social issues dictated to citizens by religious belief.
Ban all gay marriage and unions -> Social issues dictated to citizens by religious belief.Creationism is my biggest beef, because it's factually incorrect, vs. an opinion. But the others don't sit well with me, either. An amendment outlawing gay civil unions is nothing but a religious stance made into law; it has no secular reason whatsoever.
Murder is against the Commandments, but it also undermines any society, made of people of any religion. Laws against it are needed from both a religious and secular point of view. On the other hand, banning stem cell research hurts a secular society by undermining cancer research, despite its religious appeal.
Where to begin?
Ban on stem cell research. Adult stem cell research is progessing nicely, with cures galore. If you mean fetal stem cell research, no one banned it and more importantly it has produced nothing. Zip, zero, nada. Maybe we should fund research on changing lead into gold as well.
Ban on all abortion. Well I don't know many if any who don't allow the 'big three' though I think the big three are a better compromise than delivering a baby all but a few inches and crushing the skill, or leaving a baby that had the gall to survive in a tray to die. (Both positions favoured by our commander in chief, BTW)
Or let me put it this way:
Abortion is against the Commandments, but it also undermines any society, made of people of any religion. Laws against it are needed from both a religious and secular point of view.
Ban on Gay Marriage. A society can reward or condemn behaviour. Socially, anyone can get married, subject to the rules and regulations of the state of residence. Religion doesn't need to factor into it.