Food stamp cuts hit 9 million elderly and disabled people

[RandomGuy]

Why should I give a fuck about your or any other bottom feeder who sees me as a ticket to providing them with money


Who decides what sacrifice from whom?

... I don't believe in living to provide for the mass of human filth that is the poor.



Poor = people on the government dole (i.e., TANF and SNAP) = filth


Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/2-10-12bud-f1.jpg

53% is spent on people who look like this:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Society/Pix/pictures/2008/09/30/1disability.jpg

Look at that filthy lazy woman, just sitting there taking my money. She should be starving in the streets, right vy?

20% is spent on people who look like this:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20130714/f04da2db1484134c4c1460.jpg

Yet another worthless human being making bad choices like sitting in that fucking chair all day.

18% is spent on people who look like this:
http://laborlou.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/nickelanddimed1_large1.jpg

Look at that! She obviously needs to be tossed out in the trash as well. Too lazy to look for a better job with all that spare time I bet she has.

So now we have the real scumbags, the 9% is spend on people who don't fall into those categories...

I bet they stay on these programs for their entire lives, just soaking up my hard earned tax money, just having kids year after year that they can't afford...

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Total % of people who spent five years or less on Aid to Families with Dependent Children:
80.4%

[RandomGuy]

Why should I give a fuck about your or any other bottom feeder who sees me as a ticket to providing them with money


Who decides what sacrifice from whom?

... I don't believe in living to provide for the mass of human filth that is the poor.



Poor = people on the government dole (i.e., TANF and SNAP) = filth


Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.

Of course, I don't even have to speculate what your choice of social policy looks like for the children of this filth. It is fully in place in parts of eastern europe.

http://wegottobefree.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/659042_orphans300.jpg

http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/jn/images/JN0016RIN.jpg

http://media.courierpress.com/media/img/photos/2010/11/12/20101112-165710-pic-498933685_t607.jpg

http://wegottobefree.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/crib1.jpg?w=300&h=192

http://www.webklik.nl/user_files/2010_03/114793/emaciated.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1y6A5A3RNok/T0d-5cCcQBI/AAAAAAAAAoo/riLtiAwG-IE/s1600/orphan5.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZLIf6uOyIFI/T0eFL9j4ylI/AAAAAAAAAo4/u8g0viwYfLI/s1600/orphans12.jpg

http://www.worldwidesmiles.biz/USERIMAGES/Romania%202000-14.jpg



I most explicitly think: letting children starve is horrible. I desire as little of it as possible.

[RandomGuy]

I take it all back, if you can find anyone else who thinks letting children starve to death is moral.

I see Wild Cobra lurking there.

What do you think WC? Is letting children starve to death moral?

[vy65]

You're clearly not getting it. Do you honestly not see how fucked up it is to repost images of starving children to tout your morals, to make you appear better than other people (and not just me). Do you not think it fucked up in the extreme for someone ostensibly concerned with others suffering to deploy that suffering, to use it for your own gain by making yourself appear superior? And can you not see how, on a psychological level, you desire that suffering as raw product for you to refine into moral outrage?

You've put this on display over and over. If you're not getting it, you never will.

[vy65]

The problem lies indeed in the nature of our reality. We have got only one, and it must be preserved. Even if it is by the use of the most heinous of all paroles: "One must do something. One cannot remain idle." Yet, to do something for the sole reason that one cannot do nothing never has been a valid principle for action, nor for liberty. At the most it is an excuse for one's own powerlessness and a token of self-pity. The people of Sarajevo are not bothered by such questions. Being where they are, they are in the absolute need to do what they do, to do the right thing. They harbour no illusion about the outcome and do not indulge in self-pity. This is what it means to be really existing, to exist within reality. And this reality has nothing to do with the so-called objective reality of their plight, which should not exist, and which we do so much deplore. This reality exits as such - it is the stark reality of action and destiny.

This is why they are alive, while we are dead. This is why we feel the need to salvage the reality of war in our own eyes and to impose this reality (to be pitiable) upon those who suffer from it, but do not really believe in it, despite the fact they are in the midst of war and utter distress. Susan Sontag herself confesses in her diaries that the Bosnians do not really believe in the suffering which surrounds them. They end up finding the whole situation unreal, senseless, and unexplainable. It is hell, but hell of what may be termed a hyperreal kind, made even more hyperreal by the harassment of the media and the humanitarian agencies, because it renders the attitude of the world towards them even less unfathomable. Thus, they live in a kind of ghost-like war - which is fortunate, because otherwise, they would never have been able to stand up to it. These are not my words, by the way: they say it so. But then Susan Sontag, hailing herself from New York, must know better than them what reality is, since she has chosen them to incarnate it. Or maybe it is simply because reality is what she, and with her all the Western world, is lacking the most. To reconstitute reality, one needs to head to where blood flows. All these "corridors", opened by us to funnel our foodstuffs and our "culture" are in fact our lifelines along which we suck their moral strength and the energy of their distress. Yet another unequal exchange. And to those who have found in a radical delusion of reality (and this includes the belief in political rationality, which supposedly rules us, and which very much constitutes the principle of European reality) a kind of alternative courage, that is to survive a senseless situation, to these people Susan Sontag comes to convince them of the "reality" of their suffering, by making something cultural and something theatrical out of it, so that it can be useful as a referent within the theatre of western values, including "solidarity". But Susan Sontag herself is not the issue. She is merely a societal instance of what has become the general situation whereby toothless intellectuals swap their distress with the misery of the poor, both of them sustaining each other, both of them locked in a perverse agreement. This parallels the way the political class and civil society are swapping their respective misery: one throwing up corruption and scandals, the other its purposeless convulsions and its inertia.

[RandomGuy]

I fail to see where I've openly advocated for killing someone.


Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.

[vy65]

Those aren't the same thing.

[RandomGuy]

You're clearly not getting it. Do you honestly not see how fucked up it is to repost images of starving children to tout your morals, to make you appear better than other people (and not just me). Do you not think it fucked up in the extreme for someone ostensibly concerned with others suffering to deploy that suffering, to use it for your own gain by making yourself appear superior? And can you not see how, on a psychological level, you desire that suffering as raw product for you to refine into moral outrage?

You've put this on display over and over. If you're not getting it, you never will.

I can't see it, because it is not true. You saying it is over and over is no different than the jeebotards who spout biblical literalism and that the universe is 6,000 years old over and over and over, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Repetition of a lie will not make it the truth no matter how many times you say it. I called bullshit, and you have failed to do anything other than vacuous handwaving.


I most definitely do not think people that need help are inferior to me, and I very, very much want less human misery.

Anything else you want to lie about?

[RandomGuy]

Those aren't the same thing.

You are right to walk that back. By all means clarify and expand on that.

What do you mean be "let them starve"?

[vy65]

You are right to walk that back. By all means clarify and expand on that.

What do you mean be "let them starve"?

I mean exactly that. Let them starve if they cannot feed themselves. I have no obligation to give a starving man a sandwich. No court would convict me for not saving a starving man. It's not murder.

[vy65]

I can't see it, because it is not true. You saying it is over and over is no different than the jeebotards who spout biblical literalism and that the universe is 6,000 years old over and over and over, despite the evidence to the contrary.

What evidence to the contrary? All I see is you saying "nuh uh."


IRepetition of a lie will not make it the truth no matter how many times you say it. I called bullshit, and you have failed to do anything other than vacuous handwaving.

What lie? Something isn't a lie by virtue of your ipse dixit



II most definitely do not think people that need help are inferior to me, and I very, very much want less human misery.

Anything else you want to lie about?

What lies? So far, you've not offered a defense of using those pictures, or denied using other people's suffering to express your own frothiness, or defended using other people's suffering to confirm your own moral superiority. All I've heard is "lies!!!"

[RandomGuy]

And where'd I say economics was useless?


Originally Posted by RandomGuy
If you can't see how these things are interrelated, you should take a few more economics courses. They are very closely intertwined.

That is the prime failure of libertarianism in general: a lack of realization of the interrelatedness of individuals in societies.




HToo busy taking classes that help me in the real world.

[RandomGuy]

Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy
"Broods of failure"

Funny way to talk about children.

What is your solution for the children of this "filth"?


Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.


I mean exactly that. Let them starve if they cannot feed themselves. I have no obligation to give a starving man a sandwich. No court would convict me for not saving a starving man. It's not murder.

So, letting children starve to death is moral?

Yes or no will do.

[vy65]

Also not the same thing

[vy65]

So, letting children starve to death is moral?

Yes or no will do.

Before I answer that, you need to concede that I've not advocated murder and that was a gross mischaracterization of what I've said. I'm not going to answer your irrelevant questions until you concede you're misrepresenting my posts

[RandomGuy]

What evidence to the contrary? All I see is you saying "nuh uh."

"

Because you are telling me what I think about things.

That is normally called lying when you say I think X when I say I think Y.

Or to put it another way,

A strawman logical fallacy.

Fallacy: Straw Man


Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Person A = Randomguy
Position X = I, Randomguy, desire less human misery in the world.
Person B = vy65
vy65 represents that what Randomguy really wants when he posts pictures of human misery is more of it, therefore his position that we should act to stop some human misery is flawed.

QEFD, bitch.

[RandomGuy]

Before I answer that, you need to concede that I've not advocated murder and that was a gross mischaracterization of what I've said. I'm not going to answer your irrelevant questions until you concede you're misrepresenting my posts

Then by all means elaborate.

What *do* you mean by "let the children starve"?

Do tell, liar.

[RandomGuy]

Also not the same thing

And by all means, answer the question.

Is letting children starve to death moral to you?

Yes or no.

Mischaracterization or not, we should at least see if we agree on this point.

I say "no" it is not moral, under any circumstances. Pretty easy for me to answer that one.

[vy65]

No, I've described a cultural, social, and psychological dynamic. I've not told you what you think.

As a question of psychology, there necessarily will be dynamics that you are not aware of, that you repress, or don't want to acknowledge. Just because your not conscious of it, does not make it any less present.

So far, your moral frothiness, desire to personalize everything, and demonize people who disagree with you only confirms everything posted in this thread. I wouldn't expect you to see that because you're way to caught up in your sanctimonious display of moral superiority.

[vy65]

And by all means, answer the question.

Is letting children starve to death moral to you?

Yes or no.

Mischaracterization or not, we should at least see if we agree on this point.

I say "no" it is not moral, under any circumstances. Pretty easy for me to answer that one.


Then by all means elaborate.

What *do* you mean by "let the children starve"?

Do tell, liar.



I mean exactly that. Let them starve if they cannot feed themselves. I have no obligation to give a starving man a sandwich. No court would convict me for not saving a starving man. It's not murder.



Before I answer that, you need to concede that I've not advocated murder and that was a gross mischaracterization of what I've said. I'm not going to answer your irrelevant questions until you concede you're misrepresenting my posts

This conversation is over until you do what I say.

[Wild Cobra]

So, letting children starve to death is moral?

Yes or no will do.
You should get like minded people together, and start a charity.

[RandomGuy]

I've not told you what you think..


a psychological level, you desire that suffering

Times up though. Time to take my kids to the park.

[RandomGuy]

You should get like minded people together, and start a charity.

So you think the answer is "no".

Thank you.

[RandomGuy]

This conversation is over until you do what I say.

It was over a long time ago, you lying sack of ignorant pus.

[vy65]

vy65 represents that what Randomguy really wants when he posts pictures of human misery is more of it, therefore his position that we should act to stop some human misery is flawed.

QEFD, bitch.

No, it just means you're immoral and perverse according to you're own morals.

You can put words into my mouth all you want, and I'll keep calling you out on it.

[vy65]

Shouldn't sink to your level

[vy65]

It was over a long time ago, you lying sack of ignorant pus.

I guess I'm back on the ignore list?

[Wild Cobra]

So you think the answer is "no".

Thank you.
I just understand a losing battle when i see one.

Just how are we suppose to help the world?

[RandomGuy]

I guess I'm back on the ignore list?

Nope. Not done skewering you yet. You deserve more abuse, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

such imagery is deployed in the real world to create the psychological drive for more suffering

So, you have a psychological study with data that shows this?

I call bullshit. Put up evidence.

[vy65]

So, you have a psychological study with data that shows this?

I call bullshit. Put up evidence.

No, I don't. I said as much earlier. It's called phenomenology. The world doesn't revolve around numbers accountant.

[RandomGuy]

No, I don't. I said as much earlier. It's called phenomenology. The world doesn't revolve around numbers accountant.

So you don't have any evidence to support your assertions.

[RandomGuy]

No, I don't. I said as much earlier. It's called phenomenology. The world doesn't revolve around numbers accountant.

So when you say:


a psychological level, you desire that suffering

You have no evidence, just some copied and pasted bullshit philosophy that you think means something? Is that about accurate?



No.

I'm not asking for numbers. I asked a simple yes or no question to get you to clarify what you meant, Councillor.

You just said you have no evidence to prove your statement, now you are contradicting yourself.

Do you have evidence or not?

Is the statement:

I have no evidence that randomguy "on a psychological level, [desires] that suffering, other than the philosophical argument I posted earlier.

accurate or is it not?

[vy65]

So you don't have any evidence to support your assertions.

No. I dont not have numbers. The blurbs ivepostedsuffice.

[RandomGuy]

The logical default position is to reject something until it is proven. Is this accurate?

[vy65]

Bullshit. Numbers aren't the sole province of evidence. Nor do you have a monopoly on what qualifies as such ...

[vy65]

The logical default position is to reject something until it is proven. Is this accurate?

Huh? Relevance?

[RandomGuy]

No, I don't. I said as much earlier. It's called phenomenology. The world doesn't revolve around numbers accountant.

So when you say:


a psychological level, you desire that suffering

You have no evidence, just some copied and pasted bullshit philosophy that you think means something? Is that about accurate?



No.

I'm not asking for numbers. I asked a simple yes or no question to get you to clarify what you meant, Councillor.

You just said you have no evidence to prove your statement, now you are contradicting yourself.

Do you have evidence or not?

Is the statement:

"I have no evidence that randomguy "on a psychological level, [desires] that suffering, other than the philosophical argument I posted earlier."

accurate or is it not?

[RandomGuy]

Huh? Relevance?

How do you know what is true and what is not?

Do you simply believe everything that is told to you as true?

Is there some process to sifting through what is true or not?

[vy65]

So when you say:



You have no evidence, just some copied and pasted bullshit philosophy that you think means something? Is that about accurate?

Incorrect. I do not have hard scientific data. I don't have numbers. But numbers or hard data isn't the sole province of data, and the absence of such doesn't mean anything I've posted is less true.

Your glib dismissal is duly noted, along with your failure to substantively engage anything I've posted. I'm actually to blame for giving you more credit than you're due. You seemed intelligent enough to have a conversation about the issues I've raised in this thread. Sadly, you've demonstrated you aren't ....



that suffering, other than the philosophical argument I posted earlier.

accurate or is it not?

This is so de-contextualized so to mean nothing. I don't have numbers, but I have evidence. See above. My characterization of your replies in this thread thread (specifically the use of imagery) along with support from the blurbs I've posted is "evidence" according to your terminology.

[vy65]

How do you know what is true and what is not?

Do you simply believe everything that is told to you as true?

Is there some process to sifting through what is true or not?

Lol are you serious?

There is no truth as such. Only what works in a particular situation.

For someone who believes in a universal set of morals, you're appearing awfully relativistic ...

[RandomGuy]

Lol are you serious?

There is no truth as such. Only what works in a particular situation.

For someone who believes in a universal set of morals, you're appearing awfully relativistic ...

There are some truths that are clearly, objectively superior to others.

yes or no?

[RandomGuy]

II don't have numbers, but I have evidence.

I have given no firm definition of evidence. I prefer something that can be objectively verified.

How would you define "evidence"?

[vy65]

There are some truths that are clearly, objectively superior to others.

yes or no?

Absolutely not, no. I don't believe in "truth," much less an objective truth.

Truth is only a means to or the actual exertion of power. Nothing more, nothing less

[vy65]

I have given no firm definition of evidence. I prefer something that can be objectively verified.

How would you define "evidence"?

External corroboration devoid of subjective interest

[RandomGuy]

Your glib dismissal is duly noted, along with your failure to substantively engage anything I've posted.

You have posted very little of substance *to* engage with, hand waving and deflection aside.

[RandomGuy]

External corroboration devoid of subjective interest [is evidence]

So what external corroboration do you have that "imagery is deployed in the real world to create the psychological drive for more suffering"?

or, for that matter, that I have a "psychological need for more suffering"?

[RandomGuy]

Absolutely not, no. I don't believe in "truth," much less an objective truth.

Truth is only a means to or the actual exertion of power. Nothing more, nothing less

So, if I have a box, and I look in, see 3 dice in it, and somemone comes along and says that his truth is that there are 4 dice in it, we cannot determine which truth is superior?

[vy65]

So what external corroboration do you have that "imagery is deployed in the real world to create the psychological drive for more suffering"?

or, for that matter, that I have a "psychological need for more suffering"?

The bit I quoted from Baudrillard

[vy65]

So, if I have a box, and I look in, see 3 dice in it, and somemone comes along and says that his truth is that there are 4 dice in it, we cannot determine which truth is superior?

Is this at all analogous to our discussion of morality? Do you think morals are reducible to dice?

[vy65]

We're speaking of abstract concepts, not die in a box. Stop being glib

[RandomGuy]

The bit I quoted from Baudrillard

When you talked to Baudrillard, what did he say about his study of my psychology?

[RandomGuy]

There are some truths that are clearly, objectively superior to others.

yes or no?


Absolutely not, no.


So, if I have a box, and I look in, see 3 dice in it, and somemone comes along and says that his truth is that there are 4 dice in it, we cannot determine which truth is superior?


We're speaking of abstract concepts, not die in a box. Stop being glib

It isn't glib. I have made an assertion that is directly relevant. You are dissembling.

Can we, in this case determine which truth is clearly, objectively superior?

yes or no.

[vy65]

It isn't glib. I have made an assertion that is directly relevant. You are dissembling.

Can we, in this case determine which truth is clearly, objectively superior?

yes or no.

You're continuing to be glib.

And in this case, or any other, no.

[vy65]

When you talked to Baudrillard, what did he say about his study of my psychology?

I dunno. Try reading what I've posted and substsntively engaging it and lemme know

[RandomGuy]

External corroboration devoid of subjective interest [is evidence]



So what external corroboration do you have that "imagery is deployed in the real world to create the psychological drive for more suffering"?

or, for that matter, that I have a "psychological need for more suffering"?


The bit I quoted from Baudrillard

ALternately:

What external corroberation devoid of subjective interest did he present to you personally that "imagery is deployed in the real world to create the psychological drive for more suffering"?

Don't want this to get too buried. Still waiting on an answer for it.

[RandomGuy]

There are some truths that are clearly, objectively superior to others.

yes or no?


Absolutely not, no.


So, if I have a box, and I look in, see 3 dice in it, and somemone comes along and says that his truth is that there are 4 dice in it, we cannot determine which truth is superior?


We're speaking of abstract concepts, not die in a box. Stop being glib

It isn't glib. I have made an assertion that is directly relevant. You are dissembling.

Can we, in this case determine which truth is clearly, objectively superior?

yes or no.



in this case, ..no.

Well then, let's expand on it then a bit and see if we can agree that one of those truths is falsifiable. "there are four dice in the box" is a truth at is clearly falsifiable and can be objectively determined by experimentation.

I would a "superior" truth, on that can be based on evidence, and can be reproduced.

Is one of those truths falsifiable by independent, objective observation?

[RandomGuy]

..

[RandomGuy]

I dunno. Try reading what I've posted and substsntively engaging it and lemme know

I do not feel the need to rebut, point by point, bullshit philosophy that makes unsupported claims about the psychological make up of human beings, nor do I even need to, in order to prove that the "evidence" you have presented to support murdering children is clearly laughable. You might consider it "evidence" by your definition, but I doubt any moral person on the planet would consider it good evidence, any more than a house constructed out of bullshit is a "good" house. It is still made of bullshit.

That is not glib, it is fully sincere and every question I have been asking builds that case rather directly. I have caught you in one logical fallacy so far.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're continuing to be glib.

And in this case, or any other, no.

He is not being glib. you are being evasive. If you don't like his question then argue the premise on merit. What you do not do is answer it as if it is valid in a way that is easily discredited. It makes you look like a sophist fool. Congratulations.

I truly hope that your witless argumentation is an act or that you have some excellent people that do the heavy lifting for you because I see you as being a joy to litigate against elsewise.

[RandomGuy]

I'm sorry but you're going on my ignore list since you don't wanna support 4th generation welfare queens.

You fucking Nazi.

Ah, another interested party.

I will give you the same question I gave WC.

Is letting children starve to death moral?

Yes or no will do.

[RandomGuy]

He is not being glib. you are being evasive. If you don't like his question then argue the premise on merit. What you do not do is answer it as if it is valid in a way that is easily discredited. It makes you look like a sophist fool. Congratulations.

I truly hope that your witless argumentation is an act or that you have some excellent people that do the heavy lifting for you because I see you as being a joy to litigate against elsewise.

Here's the thing about holding out bullshit philosophy as a truth and "evidence" for something, and then denying that one cannot find a clearly objective, superior truth.

You then put creationists, who, up front give you their truth:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
on equal footing with people who can quantify and objectively determine, as far as humans can, the truth of the universe:

Evolution is true

If there is no possibility of arriving at a superior truth, then both are equal.




moon landings were faked in a studio
is just as true as

we landed on the moon, repeatedly

or


9-11 was an inside job
is just as true as

9-11 was a tragedy, perpetrated by some philosophically motivated nutjobs who didn't care about evidence or the truth




Lastly, if you put all truths as equal, you kind of make the legal system irrelevant

Because

guilty
is just as true as

not guilty

Kinda makes the whole adversarial system seem pointless doesn't it?

[RandomGuy]

He is not being glib. you are being evasive. If you don't like his question then argue the premise on merit. What you do not do is answer it as if it is valid in a way that is easily discredited. It makes you look like a sophist fool. Congratulations.

I truly hope that your witless argumentation is an act or that you have some excellent people that do the heavy lifting for you because I see you as being a joy to litigate against elsewise.

You can have the same question:

Is letting children starve to death moral?

Yes or no will do.

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202511&highlight=Baudrillard

[DeadlyDynasty]

Ah, another interested party.

I will give you the same question I gave WC.

Is letting children starve to death moral?

Yes or no will do.

Children who should've never been born and stand little chance at a normal life or being productive in society? Yeah, let 'em starve--and while we're at it curb your righteous indignation and blame the irresponsible parents.

[boutons_deux]

...

[RandomGuy]

[QUOTE=criminal homicide definition, Texas statute]PENAL CODE

TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON

CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Sec. 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual.


Criminial negligence is then determined by state of mind. In your case the omission is intentional. You have a sandwich, the man will die without food.


PENAL CODE

TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER 6. CULPABILITY GENERALLY

Sec. 6.01. REQUIREMENT OF VOLUNTARY ACT OR OMISSION. (a) A person commits an offense only if he voluntarily engages in conduct, including an act, an omission, or possession.

You omit to give him food.

I don't know, I am not a lawyer. It would though, seem to me that a case for knowingly causing death by withholding food could be made.


Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.


Sec. 6.02. REQUIREMENT OF CULPABILITY. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense requires.
(b) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required unless the definition plainly dispenses with any mental element.
(c) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, but one is nevertheless required under Subsection (b), intent, knowledge, or recklessness suffices to establish criminal responsibility.
(d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:
(1) intentional;
(2) knowing;
(3) reckless;
(4) criminal negligence.
(e) Proof of a higher degree of culpability than that charged constitutes proof of the culpability charged.

Since your withholding of food is, as stated, intentional, it would seem to meet the criteria for at least manslaughter.

Murder? Manslaughter?

I would defer to an expert.

[RandomGuy]

Children who should've never been born and stand little chance at a normal life or being productive in society? Yeah, let 'em starve--and while we're at it curb your righteous indignation and blame the irresponsible parents.

I didn't ask you what you think should happen.

I asked you if it is moral or not.

yes or no will do.

Is is moral to allow children to starve to death?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202511&highlight=Baudrillard

Same question:

Is is moral to allow children to starve to death?

[DeadlyDynasty]

I didn't ask you what you think should happen.

I asked you if it is moral or not.

yes or no will do.

Is is moral to allow children to starve to death?

Stupid, blanket question where you're looking to appease your self-righteous social crusade. I answered it appropriately in my previous post, and if you don't like it then step off your soapbox and gain a fresh perspective.

Also, NFL Redzone just started so don't bother me with anymore stupid questions till midnight. Thanks.

[RandomGuy]

Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy
"Broods of failure"

Funny way to talk about children.

What is your solution for the children of this "filth"?


Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.


boo-hoo, you are putting words in my mouth, i didn't *really* mean that.


You are right to walk that back. By all means clarify and expand on that.

What do you mean be "let them starve"?


I mean exactly that. Let them starve if they cannot feed themselves. I have no obligation to give a starving man a sandwich. No court would convict me for not saving a starving man. It's not murder.



Before I answer that, you need to concede that I've not advocated murder and that was a gross mischaracterization of what I've said. I'm not going to answer your irrelevant questions until you concede you're misrepresenting my posts

So the question was what do you do about the children.

The response was:
"Let them starve to death."

Then when you get called to the mat on it, it is suddently "man", and dissembling about "murder" and intentional killing.

Sophistry:

a. One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation.
a person who uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound
2. a person who reasons adroitly and speciously

I could be simply misinterpreting intent. Vy could simply not have read my original question closely, in which case, the question still stands.

[RandomGuy]

Stupid, blanket question where you're looking to appease your self-righteous social crusade. I answered it appropriately in my previous post, and if you don't like it then step off your soapbox and gain a fresh perspective.

Also, NFL Redzone just started so don't bother me with anymore stupid questions till midnight. Thanks.

So, your answer is yes, to you, letting children starve to death when you can easily feed them is moral.

Thank you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Stupid, blanket question where you're looking to appease your self-righteous social crusade. I answered it appropriately in my previous post, and if you don't like it then step off your soapbox and gain a fresh perspective.

Also, NFL Redzone just started so don't bother me with anymore stupid questions till midnight. Thanks.

You can just say that you find nothing wrong with taking no action to prevent people from starving. You can certainly make the case as a utilitarian. I think along those same lines to an extent. I think you have to think that way as a policy maker.

[Wild Cobra]

Ah, another interested party.

I will give you the same question I gave WC.

Is letting children starve to death moral?

Yes or no will do.
Is letting a population grow past it's ability to sustain itself moral? The more lives saved now means even more death in future generations.

Which is worse?

If we have the ability to fix things, then we need to. However, the root problems need to be fixed, else we keep applying bandages.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You can have the same question:

Is letting children starve to death moral?

Yes or no will do.

In general it is not but I can certainly think of specific circumstances that except from the general rule though. Given the tremendous food surplus we have in this country I think the answer should be obvious in what you are getting at.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is letting a population grow past it's ability to sustain itself moral? The more lives saved now means even more death in future generations.

Which is worse?

If we have the ability to fix things, then we need to. However, the root problems need to be fixed, else we keep applying bandages.

As has been pointed out, malnutrition worsens the problem.

[Wild Cobra]

As has been pointed out, malnutrition worsens the problem.
Do you agree or disagree that these problems are not worth fighting unless we address the root problems?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you agree or disagree that these problems are not worth fighting unless we address the root problems?

My comment was to demonstrate that malnutrition is at the root of the problem. Subsumes your question or it should if you have a shred of critical thinking.

[RandomGuy]

In general it is not but I can certainly think of specific circumstances that except from the general rule though. Given the tremendous food surplus we have in this country I think the answer should be obvious in what you are getting at.

Yeah, I gave it as an absolute, but afterwards, I did think of some circumstances where it might be less harmful, i.e. a few children or general human extinction.

Even so, I think most people, if they were serious, would say "no".

[RandomGuy]

Do you agree or disagree that these problems are not worth fighting unless we address the root problems?

I would disagree. Malnutrition is worth fighting. Pragmatically you have to do both. As Fuzzy noted, available scientific evidence and peer-reviewed studies show that malnutrition makes problems of poverty worse by retarding brain development.

Malnutrition IS a root problem of poverty, by this definition.

[RandomGuy]

Is letting a population grow past it's ability to sustain itself moral? The more lives saved now means even more death in future generations.

Which is worse?

If we have the ability to fix things, then we need to. However, the root problems need to be fixed, else we keep applying bandages.

Now THOSE are some important questions. Unfortunately, I have to get to work.

In short:
No. However, we are nowhere near that point, and all the evidence and current fertility trends point to that likely never occurring.

Extinction is, as I have stated, worse, IMO.

I would most definitely agree, identifying the root problems is paramount to any solution.

gotta go.

[boutons_deux]

"Is letting a population grow past it's ability to sustain itself moral? "

that't not the problem in USA

[Wild Cobra]

My comment was to demonstrate that malnutrition is at the root of the problem. Subsumes your question or it should if you have a shred of critical thinking.
No it isn't. That is a symptom of the root problem.

[Wild Cobra]

I would disagree. Malnutrition is worth fighting. Pragmatically you have to do both. As Fuzzy noted, available scientific evidence and peer-reviewed studies show that malnutrition makes problems of poverty worse by retarding brain development.

Malnutrition IS a root problem of poverty, by this definition.
If kids in the USA are malnourished, it's because their parents don't use the resources properly that they are given. When this thread went to malnutrition and "starvation," i assumed you guys are referring to places like Africa.

[Wild Cobra]

"Is letting a population grow past it's ability to sustain itself moral? "

that't not the problem in USA

Neither is starvation, unless child abuse is involve, and that's a different topic.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lmao Wild Foodstamps talking about not letting the population grow past its ability to sustain itself when he's anti-abortion.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao Wild Foodstamps talking about not letting the population grow past its ability to sustain itself when he's anti-abortion.
But... I'm OK with retroactive abortion for people like you!

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

But... I'm OK with retroactive abortion for people like you!

:lmao that's telling me

Better delete that post before god sees that you support abortion.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol Welfare Cobra

[vy65]

Criminial negligence is then determined by state of mind. In your case the omission is intentional. You have a sandwich, the man will die without food.

You omit to give him food.

I don't know, I am not a lawyer. It would though, seem to me that a case for knowingly causing death by withholding food could be made.

Since your withholding of food is, as stated, intentional, it would seem to meet the criteria for at least manslaughter.

Murder? Manslaughter?

I would defer to an expert.

This might be the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

For one, you clearly didn't think through the practicality of what you wrote. Literally everyone who sees a starving homeless man and does nothing would be guilty of homicide. Millions of innocent people would become criminals. No court would ever accept that construction. And if your construction is correct, please provide a case where a court threw someone in jail for failure to hand over a sandwich.

For two, this construction probably is a due process violation.

For three, there is no civil/tort duty to save others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue. That wiki cites warren v. Do where the court held that police officers are not under a duty to rescue citizens not in their custody. If the police are not under a duty to rescue, please explain how a private citizen has a legal duty to give a sandwich. And also explain how there can be a criminal duty to rescue where the lower, civil duty does not exist.

For four, how do you show causation in these cases? How would you show that my (specific to me, as opposed to someone else) failure to act caused death? What would you have to provide to make this showing beyond a reasonable doubt?

[vy65]

Wow I'm being quoted in your sig bloc? You must really have complicated feelings about me RG, I thought I was gonna be ignored.

[vy65]

He is not being glib. you are being evasive. If you don't like his question then argue the premise on merit. What you do not do is answer it as if it is valid in a way that is easily discredited. It makes you look like a sophist fool. Congratulations.

I truly hope that your witless argumentation is an act or that you have some excellent people that do the heavy lifting for you because I see you as being a joy to litigate against elsewise.

You're the Richard Jefferson of this forum.

[vy65]

When you talked to Baudrillard, what did he say about his study of my psychology?

Still waiting for a substantive defense of what you've posted in this thread. Continuing to be glib and trite ain't helping your cause.

[vy65]

This might be the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

For one, you clearly didn't think through the practicality of what you wrote. Literally everyone who sees a starving homeless man and does nothing would be guilty of homicide. Millions of innocent people would become criminals. No court would ever accept that construction. And if your construction is correct, please provide a case where a court threw someone in jail for failure to hand over a sandwich.

For two, this construction probably is a due process violation.

For three, there is no civil/tort duty to save others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue. That wiki cites warren v. Do where the court held that police officers are not under a duty to rescue citizens not in their custody. If the police are not under a duty to rescue, please explain how a private citizen has a legal duty to give a sandwich. And also explain how there can be a criminal duty to rescue where the lower, civil duty does not exist.

For four, how do you show causation in these cases? How would you show that my (specific to me, as opposed to someone else) failure to act caused death? What would you have to provide to make this showing beyond a reasonable doubt?

Technically, there could be a crime for conduct not made actionable by the common law. But that would have to be codified by statute. So, I'll admit I'm wrong when you show me the texas give a homeless a sandwich statute.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lol Welfare Cobra

:lol did you know his whore of a mother was actually on food stamps at one point?

[vy65]

:lol did you know his whore of a mother was actually on food stamps at one point?

:crofl

[Wild Cobra]

It's pretty bad when you must resort to lies for an insult.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It's pretty bad when you must resort to lies for an insult.

:lol you've said it yourself, I didn't make it up

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Liar.

She was never "dependent" on it. She took food stamps for a few months when my parents got divorced, then found employment. Used the safety net as intended.

End of story.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

I see...

You call all respectable women, a whore...

No wonder you can't get any.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lmao "respectable" women don't need food stamps, per conservative logic

[Clipper Nation]

I see...

You call all respectable women, a whore...

No wonder you can't get any.

http://heritageaction.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/food-stamps.jpg

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

http://www.texaswatchdog.org/files/LoneStarCard.jpg

[Th'Pusher]

http://www.texaswatchdog.org/files/LoneStarCard.jpg

I believe they use these in his neck of the woods:

http://www.oregon.gov/dhs/ebt/PublishingImages/oregon-trail-card-callout.png

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I believe they use these in his neck of the woods:

http://www.oregon.gov/dhs/ebt/PublishingImages/oregon-trail-card-callout.png

:lmao

[AntiChrist]

You're the Richard Jefferson of this forum.

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

I believe they use these in his neck of the woods:

http://www.oregon.gov/dhs/ebt/PublishingImages/oregon-trail-card-callout.png
Yes, today. This was over 40 years ago, and the paper ones were around back then.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Yes, today. This was over 40 years ago, and the paper ones were around back then.

:lol you would know

[Wild Cobra]

:lol you would know

And you assholes just keep proving you don't know jack shit.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

And you assholes just keep proving you don't know jack shit.

:lol I know that mommeh Cobra is a welfare queen

[Wild Cobra]

:lol I know that mommeh Cobra is a welfare queen
LOL...

You are so stupid to believe that.

Keep it up, I'm up for a bit of comedy.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

LOL...

You are so stupid to believe that.

Keep it up, I'm up for a bit of comedy.

:lol there's nothing to believe, you said she's a welfare queen who took food stamps

:lol tell your mom to quit being a taker and start being a maker

:lol your messiah Paul Ryan would be ashamed of your mother

[Clipper Nation]

:lol Welfare Cobra being a hypocritical neocon
:lol Leeching off public money
:lol Food stamps

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lol Welfare Cobra being a hypocritical neocon
:lol Leeching off public money
:lol Food stamps

:lol being a spitting image of everything Ayn Rand hates while worshiping her

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

you guys must be creaming your panties!

[vy65]

This thread took a turn for the better

[Th'Pusher]

Yes, today. This was over 40 years ago, and the paper ones were around back then.

As I stated upstream, I fully support the welfare system that allowed your mother to provide for you in her time of need. Some in this thread would have preferred you starved to death.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're the Richard Jefferson of this forum.

Then you can be the Keith Bogans and still look like a sophist fool. Congratulations.


:lmao

and you should be pleased. you have dipshit here as your circle jerk. Congratulations twice over.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the moral of the story here is that WC should have been starved and his mother treated like a degenerative low life because she couldn't even afford to feed her own kid. She should have been force sterilized before she went out and whored some more. Get right to the root of the problem and euthanize babyWC.

[ElNono]

If Cobra is a byproduct of foodstamps, I can see where vy65 might have a point, tbh...

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If Cobra is a byproduct of foodstamps, I can see where vy65 might have a point, tbh...

This is kinda true :lol

If no food stamps means Welfare Cobra would have starved to death as a child, I'm all for ending the program :lol

[Wild Cobra]

As I stated upstream, I fully support the welfare system that allowed your mother to provide for you in her time of need. Some in this thread would have preferred you starved to death.

I have more than a dozen times now explained the differences between using the social systems as a safety net vs. a hammock. I'll bet others agree if you asses would ask for elaboration instead of resorting to adolescent behavior.

[boutons_deux]

"as a safety net vs. a hammock"

Most people on public assistance don't stay there forever. With the piddling subsistence sums they receive, it ain't no life in a hammock. That's just you right-wingers sliming ALL people on public assistance as criminals, frauds, moochers.

[RandomGuy]

This might be the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

For one, you clearly didn't think through the practicality of what you wrote. Literally everyone who sees a starving homeless man and does nothing would be guilty of homicide. Millions of innocent people would become criminals. No court would ever accept that construction. And if your construction is correct, please provide a case where a court threw someone in jail for failure to hand over a sandwich.

For two, this construction probably is a due process violation.

For three, there is no civil/tort duty to save others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue. That wiki cites warren v. Do where the court held that police officers are not under a duty to rescue citizens not in their custody. If the police are not under a duty to rescue, please explain how a private citizen has a legal duty to give a sandwich. And also explain how there can be a criminal duty to rescue where the lower, civil duty does not exist.

For four, how do you show causation in these cases? How would you show that my (specific to me, as opposed to someone else) failure to act caused death? What would you have to provide to make this showing beyond a reasonable doubt?

As I said, I am not a lawyer. I can read and generally understand the law. I will make no specific claims to be an expert in criminal laws.

I will be happy to withdraw all of it, as baseless speculation, other than to say there might be a case made in some circumstances, to my limited understanding. Certainly people have been charged with child neglect felonies for allowing children to starve to death.

[vy65]

As I said, I am not a lawyer. I can read and generally understand the law. I will make no specific claims to be an expert in criminal laws.

Noted. Thanks for agreeing that what I've said is not equivilent to murder.


I will be happy to withdraw all of it, as baseless speculation, other than to say there might be a case made in some circumstances, to my limited understanding. Certainly people have been charged with child neglect felonies for allowing children to starve to death.

Those circumstances are different because a special relationship arises. The cases you've identified involve the parent-child relationship, and there are thousands of child neglect cases. That's not what we're talking about here because I have no special relationship (in the legal sense) with starving strangers.

[RandomGuy]

I most definitely do not think people that need help are inferior to me, and I very, very much want less human misery.

[Randomguy,]on a psychological level, you desire that suffering

That is normally called lying when you say I think X when I say I think Y.

Or to put it another way,

A strawman logical fallacy.

Fallacy: Straw Man


Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Person A = Randomguy
Position X = I, Randomguy, desire less human misery in the world.
Person B = vy65
vy65 represents that what Randomguy really wants when he posts pictures of human misery is more of it, therefore his position that we should act to stop some human misery is flawed.

QED.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That is normally called lying when you say I think X when I say I think Y.

Or to put it another way,

A strawman logical fallacy.

Fallacy: Straw Man


Person A = Randomguy
Position X = I, Randomguy, desire less human misery in the world.
Person B = vy65
vy65 represents that what Randomguy really wants when he posts pictures of human misery is more of it, therefore his position that we should act to stop some human misery is flawed.

QED.

As I have said before, I hope he puts better effort into his briefs. I can just see a clerk snickering reading his filings.

[RandomGuy]

Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy
"Broods of failure"

Funny way to talk about children.

What is your solution for the children of this "filth"?


Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.


boo-hoo, you are putting words in my mouth, i didn't *really* mean that.


You are right to walk that back. By all means clarify and expand on that.

What do you mean by "let them starve"?


I mean exactly that. Let them starve if they cannot feed themselves. I have no obligation to give a starving man a sandwich. No court would convict me for not saving a starving man. It's not murder.



Before I answer that, you need to concede that I've not advocated murder and that was a gross mischaracterization of what I've said. I'm not going to answer your irrelevant questions until you concede you're misrepresenting my posts

So the question was what do you do about the children.

The response was:
"Let them starve" with " to death." generally understood and implied.

Then when you get called to the mat on it, it is suddetly "man", and dissembling about "murder" and intentional killing.

Sophistry:

a. One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation.
a person who uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound
2. a person who reasons adroitly and speciously

I could be simply misinterpreting intent. Vy could simply not have read my original question closely, in which case, the question still stands, unanswered

What is your solution for the children of this "filth"?

[vy65]

As I have said before, I hope he puts better effort into his briefs. I can just see a clerk snickering reading his filings.

Yeah boy, jump on that dogpile

[RandomGuy]

As I have said before, I hope he puts better effort into his briefs. I can just see a clerk snickering reading his filings.

Not done yet. I am about to shred the bullshit philosopher that he posted as "evidence". What he is using as justification for his views on the subject is laughably flawed, when you put it all in one place.

Feel free to tell me if you think letting children starve to death is moral. He accused me of being sanctimonious about that, but that charge requires that *I* am the one attempting to be morally superior to other people, when my point is actually that someone who advocates harm to children is morally inferior to most people. (yet another strawman fallacy)

I kind of already know your answer, but in your own words would be helpful.

[vy65]

So the question was what do you do about the children.

The response was:
"Let them starve" with " to death." generally understood and implied.

Then when you get called to the mat on it, it is suddetly "man", and dissembling about "murder" and intentional killing.

Sophistry:

a. One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation.
a person who uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound
2. a person who reasons adroitly and speciously

I could be simply misinterpreting intent. Vy could simply not have read my original question closely, in which case, the question still stands, unanswered

What is your solution for the children of this "filth"?

I didn't even bother reading this.

I still stand by what I've said. You've conceded that it's not the equivalent of murder (because it's not).

Others have noted that pleasure you gain in showing off how concerned you are with the plight of others. The national geographic-esque post of suffering children confirms how you use there suffering to appear morally superior to others. You're using other people's suffering for your own gain. If you can't see that now, you never will.

Philosophy isn't reducible to numbers and data. Posting inane and irrelevant dictionary quotes isn't relevant either. The point's been made above - you use other people's suffering for your own gain. That's fucked.

And what's been lost in all this is how you have no scheme for holding people accountable for their decisions. There's no responsibility in your book. And what's even more fucked than that is that you expect people like me to hold the bag for these other assholes.

Now go post some inane logic proof or quote an irrelevant article in response to this. That should get you good and frothy.

[RandomGuy]

such imagery is deployed in the real world to create the psychological drive for more suffering


So, you have a psychological study with data that shows this?


I call bullshit. Put up evidence.


No, I don't. I said as much earlier. It's called phenomenology. The world doesn't revolve around numbers accountant.



You have no evidence, just some copied and pasted bullshit philosophy that you think means something? Is that about accurate?



[No it is not accurate]

Unfortunately for your dumb ass, this *IS* a fully verifiable claim. It can be proven true or false. A simple test of human beings under controlled conditions can have their drive or desire for human suffering or even images of such suffering tested.

It can be quantified using numbers.

It also forms the basis for Buillards bullshit philosophy. BUillard's bullshit claim is not sourced to any scientific study that I could find. It is, therefore, quite possibly made the fuck up, pulled out of his ass, and then he handed that steamy turd on to the world. The burden of proof is on the man making the claim, who is dead. Vy is certainly welcome to show any verifyable evidence to support this, although he has already admitted there is none.

Vy has taken it as a given assumption. He called it "evidence".

I have asked for the basis for this statement, and have not gotten an answer.

We all know one will not be forthcoming. We know bullshit when we see it.

I can, though, simply ask a related question:

If a philosophy is based on underlying assumptions that are provably, objectively verifyably false, is it reasonable to think that the conclusions based on those false assumptions are more likely wrong?

Vy is trying to have the steamy turds that pass for "true" in his mind shoved under his nose. I think he really does not care if innocent children of poor "filth" starve to death, he has certainly had ample opportunity to be clear on that and say he does not believe that. He has not done so.

The only "evidence" in this "indictment" is some bullshit philosophy.

I reject bullshit when I see it. The burden of proof is not mine, and has not been met.

[RandomGuy]

Others have noted that pleasure you gain in showing off how concerned you are with the plight of others. The national geographic-esque post of suffering children confirms how you use there suffering to appear morally superior to others. You're using other people's suffering for your own gain. If you can't see that now, you never will. .

I reject your unproven assertions out of hand, until you can prove them.

You can hand wave all you want, sophist, and until you can prove them, your arguments have about as much validity as the lunatic rambling about moon landing hoaxes.

I do not need to get frothy.

[RandomGuy]

And what's been lost in all this is how you have no scheme for holding people accountable for their decisions. There's no responsibility in your book. And what's even more fucked than that is that you expect people like me to hold the bag for these other assholes.

More strawmen.

I do have a scheme for holding people accountable, and I do very firmly believe in personal responsibility. To represent otherwise is a distortion.

That is three logical fallacies so far, all strawmen.

[Wild Cobra]

If kids are starving or suffering malnutrition here in the states, then why is their parent or guardian allowing such child abuse? There is plenty of social benefits out there to take care of children.

Again, that's why I jumped to the whole world idea when you guys started to talk about such things as starvation.

[RandomGuy]

If kids are starving or suffering malnutrition here in the states, then why is their parent or guardian allowing such child abuse? There is plenty of social benefits out there to take care of children.

Again, that's why I jumped to the whole world idea when you guys started to talk about such things as starvation.

We do not put enough effort into curbing child abuse, IMO.

Unfortunately.. i have to get going

[vy65]

Unfortunately for your dumb ass, this *IS* a fully verifiable claim. It can be proven true or false. A simple test of human beings under controlled conditions can have their drive or desire for human suffering or even images of such suffering tested.

It can be quantified using numbers.

It also forms the basis for Buillards bullshit philosophy. BUillard's bullshit claim is not sourced to any scientific study that I could find. It is, therefore, quite possibly made the fuck up, pulled out of his ass, and then he handed that steamy turd on to the world. The burden of proof is on the man making the claim, who is dead. Vy is certainly welcome to show any verifyable evidence to support this, although he has already admitted there is none.

Like I've said before, there are no studies supporting this claim. That's because it's philosophy and not statistics.

If you disagree with the reasoning and explanation I've provided, please feel free to cough it up. However, the absence of numbers is not, in itself, a response because said numbers are not necessary. Not everything is reducible to ones and zeros.


Vy has taken it as a given assumption. He called it "evidence".

I have asked for the basis for this statement, and have not gotten an answer.

What assumptions? I've merely seen you post pictures and called bullshit on it. You're trying to obfuscate that fact by trying to inject irrelevance


We all know one will not be forthcoming. We know bullshit when we see it.

I can, though, simply ask a related question:

If a philosophy is based on underlying assumptions that are provably, objectively verifyably false, is it reasonable to think that the conclusions based on those false assumptions are more likely wrong?

Vy is trying to have the steamy turds that pass for "true" in his mind shoved under his nose. I think he really does not care if innocent children of poor "filth" starve to death, he has certainly had ample opportunity to be clear on that and say he does not believe that. He has not done so.

The only "evidence" in this "indictment" is some bullshit philosophy.

I reject bullshit when I see it. The burden of proof is not mine, and has not been met.

The only basis for your claim of falsity is the fact that you haven't been psychoanlyzed. That's irrelevant. The object of the criticism is how what you've done gets played out in the real world. Regardless of what you think the effects of your actions are, there are different perceptions of how they work in the world.

The fact remains that your response has been to 1) say its bullshit 2) say there are no numbers and 3) say its bullshit. That's not substantive. That shows that you've got nothing to say.

[vy65]

More strawmen.

I do have a scheme for holding people accountable, and I do very firmly believe in personal responsibility. To represent otherwise is a distortion.

That is three logical fallacies so far, all strawmen.

Great, so explain your schema of personal responsibility. Please explain specifically how you hold people who are on welfare or are unable to support a family but who do have a family. In other words, what do you do with those people on or "near" welfare, who cannot financially support a family, but have one anyway? How are they held responsible for their actions?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah boy, jump on that dogpile

Feeling hounded, chachi?

You make a pretty asinine argument. You said straight out that you don't give a fuck about poor people starving and you have been taken to task for it. Your defense has been two parts.

1) your philosopher without a lick of analysis behind it. you have pretty much abandoned ship here although you have done an admirable job whining about numbers. whether or nor philosophy can be quantified like that is a central question in philosophy and not a foregone conclusion. all we have left is a keening whine coming from your direction.

2) RG is somehow exploiting their suffering for his own gain. this is what I call blind flailing. you are upset because you have been made to look the uncaring asshole. so what do you do? lash out at your tormentor of course. its what you see from children and thus it is called childish.

Now I get that this is just interwebs arguing but for over three days now it is the best you can come up with. thus my 'jump.'

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Great, so explain your schema of personal responsibility. Please explain specifically how you hold people who are on welfare or are unable to support a family but who do have a family. In other words, what do you do with those people on or "near" welfare, who cannot financially support a family, but have one anyway? How are they held responsible for their actions?

Seeing that you seem so punitive in that regard how about you tell us. Or is that at the crux of it: you cannot so you just say 'fuck em?'

[vy65]

Seeing that you seem so punitive in that regard how about you tell us. Or is that at the crux of it: you cannot so you just say 'fuck em?'

Your inability to answer the question is duly noted.

[vy65]

Feeling hounded, chachi?

Not at all. Thanks for the concern though


You make a pretty asinine argument. You said straight out that you don't give a fuck about poor people starving and you have been taken to task for it. Your defense has been two parts.

Don't see my not giving a fuck about people has any relevance to a criticism of imagery and its use in connection with moral argument. You'll have to explain that.


1) your philosopher without a lick of analysis behind it. you have pretty much abandoned ship here although you have done an admirable job whining about numbers. whether or nor philosophy can be quantified like that is a central question in philosophy and not a foregone conclusion. all we have left is a keening whine coming from your direction.

Um, my being a philosopher is news to me. And when did I abandon ship? I've been pretty consistent in standing by the claims I've made. All I see here is whining about my alleged whining. Great contribution to the discussion bro, keep it up.


2) RG is somehow exploiting their suffering for his own gain. this is what I call blind flailing. you are upset because you have been made to look the uncaring asshole. so what do you do? lash out at your tormentor of course. its what you see from children and thus it is called childish.

So the reason why the claims advanced here are bullshit is because I'm butthurt? I find it odd that a philosopher who's never met me, has no relationship to me, and doesn't give a fuck about would have his argument rejected because I'm butthurt about being called a meanie. Again, solid contribution. You've presented cogent, applicable, and really insightful analysis here.


Now I get that this is just interwebs arguing but for over three days now it is the best you can come up with. thus my 'jump.'

Lol lashing out

[Th'Pusher]

Your inability to answer the question is duly noted.
I get the philosophy of personal responsibility but is kind of irrelevant in the real world. Do you think it is good public policy to provide no social safety net?

[vy65]

I get the philosophy of personal responsibility but is kind of irrelevant in the real world. Do you think it is good public policy to provide no social safety net?

I don't really have an answer to that question because it's pretty broad.

Do I think that people who have abused federal welfare deserve more of it? No.

Do I think that there should be some kind of safety net? Yes. But I think it needs a lot of strings associated with it. I had some ideas about it in a thread from a month ago, if you care to look it up.

[Wild Cobra]

Do I think that there should be some kind of safety net? Yes. But I think it needs a lot of strings associated with it. I had some ideas about it in a thread from a month ago, if you care to look it up.
Exactly.

The progressives talk about making it look normal, as to avoid stigmas.

I'm sorry, but prodding one's pride will get many of those who are slackers motivated to get off the system!

Make them do terrible jobs that become available.

Make them do drug testing.

Do anything to make them want to get off the social welfare systems.

[Th'Pusher]

I don't really have an answer to that question because it's pretty broad.

Do I think that people who have abused federal welfare deserve more of it? No.

Do I think that there should be some kind of safety net? Yes. But I think it needs a lot of strings associated with it. I had some ideas about it in a thread from a month ago, if you care to look it up.
So you don't think the filthy poor should starve to death? That was hyperbolic attention whoring?

[vy65]

I think in some circumstances they do.

Why are you so concerned with whether or not I'm attention whoring?

[RandomGuy]

Great, so explain your schema of personal responsibility. Please explain specifically how you hold people who are on welfare or are unable to support a family but who do have a family. In other words, what do you do with those people on or "near" welfare, who cannot financially support a family, but have one anyway? How are they held responsible for their actions?

You first.

I asked:

What do we do with the children of the people on food stamps?

You seem to be unsatisfied with your original answer, and pissy at me for "misrepresenting" your words. Now's your chance. Tell me what you really mean.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224425&page=13&p=6952671&viewfull=1#post6952671

[RandomGuy]

Exactly.

The progressives talk about making it look normal, as to avoid stigmas.

I'm sorry, but prodding one's pride will get many of those who are slackers motivated to get off the system!

Make them do terrible jobs that become available.

Make them do drug testing.

Do anything to make them want to get off the social welfare systems.

Drug testing costs more than it is worth, if your intent is to catch people on welfare doing drugs. It would add to the cost for little benefit. I don't see such a thing deterring anyone from looking for assistance either. It is a stupid "feel good" thing that lets sanctimonious people feel like they are punishing people for some imagined bad decisions.

Failed either way.

I don't give a shit what people think is normal or not, stigma or not. I view such assistance as akin to a life preserver on a boat. There for people who need it, when they need it.

As I said before, I support work requirements and so forth to encourage people to get jobs, and I fully support expanding help to those who show the initiative to do so, with things like subsidized day care.

The system for TANF we have now is designed to do pretty much that. It has some lifetime limits and work requirements.

What more do you want?

Which programs are you specifically talking about, because it makes a difference when it comes to who qualifies and what they get out of it.

[RandomGuy]

Not at all. Thanks for the concern though

Don't see my not giving a fuck about people has any relevance to a criticism of imagery and its use in connection with moral argument. You'll have to explain that.

I view not harming people as a basis for my morality.

"harm" can sometimes be something of an amorphous, abstract concept, sometimes it is obvious.

It is my direct assertion that most people can identify many kinds of harm just from looking at it, therefore an image of harm is fully relevant to making that case. If minimizing or avoiding harm is a basis for morality, then being able to generally agree on what is harmful is pretty important.

You have stated that you are harmed by having the government tax you. You find this harm immoral. Do you agree that actions that harm other human beings are generally immoral?

[RandomGuy]

Like I've said before, there are no studies supporting this claim. That's because it's philosophy and not statistics.


such imagery is deployed in the real world to create the psychological drive for more suffering

This is a statement of fact, not philosophy. It is quantifiable, and verifiable. It forms the basis of your critique.

"Vy65 uses horrible arguments in the real world to create the impression that he is far more intelligent than he really is."
"Vy65 deploys outright lies in the real world to create awe and fear in the people that listen to him."

Both are examples of quantifiable, verifiable statements.

Should I then hold up both of these statements as my truth, to be equal in veracity to yours?

[vy65]

You first.

I asked:

What do we do with the children of the people on food stamps?

You seem to be unsatisfied with your original answer, and pissy at me for "misrepresenting" your words. Now's your chance. Tell me what you really mean.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224425&page=13&p=6952671&viewfull=1#post6952671

I honestly don't know how to be any less clear, so let me try again. People who have families without the financial werewithall to provide for their families should not receive public assistance. In other words, we do nothing with these children of people on food stamps.

I've shown you mine, now show me yours:


Great, so explain your schema of personal responsibility. Please explain specifically how you hold people who are on welfare or are unable to support a family but who do have a family. In other words, what do you do with those people on or "near" welfare, who cannot financially support a family, but have one anyway? How are they held responsible for their actions?

[vy65]

I view not harming people as a basis for my morality.

"harm" can sometimes be something of an amorphous, abstract concept, sometimes it is obvious.

It is my direct assertion that most people can identify many kinds of harm just from looking at it, therefore an image of harm is fully relevant to making that case. If minimizing or avoiding harm is a basis for morality, then being able to generally agree on what is harmful is pretty important.

But no one disputed the fact of peoples suffering. No one said people aren't starving or suffering. So I have a hard time understanding the need for imagery to prove a point that was never in doubt?

And that still doesn't address how that imagery is deployed. The point is not just: don't show pictures of people suffering. It's how their suffering is used to promote other people's moral superiority: you were/are using people's suffering as some sort of tool for your own advancement. That's the sole point being made (one which certainly doesn't need data or statistical support).

Just to be clear -- the issue isn't simply "exposing what's been hidden" (as you say, identifying harm from looking at it). That harm was identified. The issue is the way in which that imagery is used in connection with one's morals/to confirm one's moral superiority.

In this way, in the use of those pictures, you are adding to rather than detracting from people's suffering -- because you're using them as a tool or as a resource to show your moral superiority. It's the old Kant/treating people as means rather than ends in themselves.


You have stated that you are harmed by having the government tax you. You find this harm immoral. Do you agree that actions that harm other human beings are generally immoral?

Don't think I've ever gone so far as to say that the "harm" (your word, not mine) visited upon my by the government was immoral.

And no, I don't think harming other people is immoral. I don't have a set of morals in the way you use that word: universal rules that should guide behavior. I don't think those rules exist and I choose not to abide by what others claim to be moral.

I think that violence to other people is inevitable. And I think that moral codes deployed to deal with said violence turn in on themselves and become tools to propogate more harm to people.

[vy65]

This is a statement of fact, not philosophy. It is quantifiable, and verifiable. It forms the basis of your critique.

"Vy65 uses horrible arguments in the real world to create the impression that he is far more intelligent than he really is."
"Vy65 deploys outright lies in the real world to create awe and fear in the people that listen to him."

Both are examples of quantifiable, verifiable statements.

Should I then hold up both of these statements as my truth, to be equal in veracity to yours?

I'd be free to point out specific instances of how you're wrong. In other words, I could introduce counter-examples showing that I am, in fact, the tits, etc. etc.

I'm still waiting for a specific response as to why your use of imagery in this thread is not a part of a system than cannibalizes other peoples suffering for moral gain.

[Wild Cobra]

Drug testing costs more than it is worth, if your intent is to catch people on welfare doing drugs. It would add to the cost for little benefit.

I disagree. First of all, it appears that it doesn't work. I will contend that people who know they will test positive don't bother trying. those who really need the benefits have an added incentive to stay clean to be able to find work, or better work as well.



I don't give a shit what people think is normal or not, stigma or not. I view such assistance as akin to a life preserver on a boat.

And when someone is recently unemployed, there need be no testing or question of their needs. How about testing if they become long term users of a program?



There for people who need it, when they need it.

Agreed. Still, there are those who use the system as their first means of income. This needs to stop.



As I said before, I support work requirements and so forth to encourage people to get jobs, and I fully support expanding help to those who show the initiative to do so, with things like subsidized day care.

I'm OK with subsidized daycare as well. makes for a position someone can fill that is on benifits as well.



The system for TANF we have now is designed to do pretty much that. It has some lifetime limits and work requirements.

Not all programs are very tight. I'm for doing what is necessary to get people off such programs, but in a mostly positive way.



What more do you want?

Which programs are you specifically talking about, because it makes a difference when it comes to who qualifies and what they get out of it.

I agree there are differences.

Unemployment insurance for example. After the initial six month period, would you agree with drug testing similar to what most good paying employers use? How can one expect to get off the system if they fall into such routines?

I think what irks me the most is people conceiving children when they are not financially ready for a family. Some kind of deterrent needs to be found to reduce such occurrences.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not at all. Thanks for the concern though



Don't see my not giving a fuck about people has any relevance to a criticism of imagery and its use in connection with moral argument. You'll have to explain that.



Um, my being a philosopher is news to me. And when did I abandon ship? I've been pretty consistent in standing by the claims I've made. All I see here is whining about my alleged whining. Great contribution to the discussion bro, keep it up.



So the reason why the claims advanced here are bullshit is because I'm butthurt? I find it odd that a philosopher who's never met me, has no relationship to me, and doesn't give a fuck about would have his argument rejected because I'm butthurt about being called a meanie. Again, solid contribution. You've presented cogent, applicable, and really insightful analysis here.



Lol lashing out

I said 'your' philosopher. as in the possessive. now think about it and try again.

And we can use whatever adjective if you do not like butthurt. Upset works just as well but you really do not counter the point. I never said your claims didn't matter because you are upset. I said that it is very obvious that you are motivated by being upset. You really are not very good at this as it is an obvious and important distinction. This is furthered by RG when he asks you for a shred of proof about his gain. You have nothing but your ass is still showing.

At the end of the day your 'standing behind your claims' has amounted to virtually nothing. You contribute little but snark. I hope you do your clients better.

[boutons_deux]

I disagree. First of all, it appears that it doesn't work. I will contend that people who know they will test positive don't bother trying. those who really need the benefits have an added incentive to stay clean to be able to find work, or better work as well.


And when someone is recently unemployed, there need be no testing or question of their needs. How about testing if they become long term users of a program?


Agreed. Still, there are those who use the system as their first means of income. This needs to stop.


I'm OK with subsidized daycare as well. makes for a position someone can fill that is on benifits as well.


Not all programs are very tight. I'm for doing what is necessary to get people off such programs, but in a mostly positive way.


I agree there are differences.

Unemployment insurance for example. After the initial six month period, would you agree with drug testing similar to what most good paying employers use? How can one expect to get off the system if they fall into such routines?

I think what irks me the most is people conceiving children when they are not financially ready for a family. Some kind of deterrent needs to be found to reduce such occurrences.

FL did drug testing of welfare recipients, it was a huge, expensive failure

your assumption is that people on public assistance are frauds, cheats, moochers, who refuse to work, living well on public assistnace, so they should be assumed to be guilty, requiring pre-emptive punishment, and extremely high barriers to obtain public assistance. Your assumption(s) are wrong. GFY

[RandomGuy]

I honestly don't know how to be any less clear, so let me try again. People who have families without the financial werewithall to provide for their families should not receive public assistance. In other words, we do nothing with these children of people on food stamps.



dis·sem·ble (d-smbl)
v. dis·sem·bled, dis·sem·bling, dis·sem·bles
v.tr.
1. To disguise or conceal behind a false appearance. See Synonyms at disguise.
2. To make a false show of; feign.
v.intr.
To disguise or conceal one's real nature, motives, or feelings behind a false appearance.

Vy65:
I think we should get rid of food stamps. The people on food stamps should be allowed to starve.

Randomguy:
That is horrible, what about the children?

Vy65:
Fuck them.

Randomguy:
That sounds pretty horrible. If you get rid of food stamps and the dole entirely to achieve your goal of starving the people, then you will starve the children as well.

Vy65:
That isn't what I meant. I meant we do nothing with the children of the people I want to starve to death, I didn't really mean I want the children to starve.

Randomguy:
Well logically, if you have the parents starving, then something will have to happen to the children. If these people are that dysfunctional and starving, it seems reasonable that the children will be harmed as well. Are you sure this is what you want?

Vy65:
Yes. I want the parents to starve, and for us to do nothing with the children. I understand that logically the children will be harmed but I am ok with harming children, because I am a fucking horrible human being.

Keep walking that back. We all know exactly what you meant.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224425&page=13&p=6952671&viewfull=1#post6952671

[RandomGuy]

I'd be free to point out specific instances of how you're wrong. In other words, I could introduce counter-examples showing that I am, in fact, the tits, etc. etc.

I'm still waiting for a specific response as to why your use of imagery in this thread is not a part of a system than cannibalizes other peoples suffering for moral gain.

Translation:

"wah, I don't like having my nose rubbed in the pile of shit that I left on the carpet"

[RandomGuy]

I'd be free to point out specific instances of how you're wrong. In other words, I could introduce counter-examples showing that I am, in fact, the tits, etc. etc.

I'm still waiting for a specific response as to why your use of imagery in this thread is not a part of a system than cannibalizes other peoples suffering for moral gain.

LOL expecting someone to respond to why they are violating his dogma.

I reject the question outright as specious and irrelevant. It assumes facts not in evidence, e.g. "Why did you stop beating your wife?"

LOL asking someone to prove a negative.

You fucking fail so hard, it is beginning to get a bit boring.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think harming other people is immoral.

Thats going in the signature too.

While I can certainly think of some instances where I would harm someones brains out with a shovel, I find that a blanket dismissal of harming others as immoral borders on psychopathy. A callous lack of empathy is certainly one of the prime symptoms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Sociopathy

I find harming others immoral in most circumstances.

I have argued with some insane people on the internet, but this may be the first time I have ever argued with an insane, evil person.

Wow, just wow.

[RandomGuy]

But no one disputed the fact of peoples suffering. No one said people aren't starving or suffering. So I have a hard time understanding the need for imagery to prove a point that was never in doubt?

And that still doesn't address how that imagery is deployed. The point is not just: don't show pictures of people suffering. It's how their suffering is used to promote other people's moral superiority: you were/are using people's suffering as some sort of tool for your own advancement. That's the sole point being made (one which certainly doesn't need data or statistical support).

Just to be clear -- the issue isn't simply "exposing what's been hidden" (as you say, identifying harm from looking at it). That harm was identified. The issue is the way in which that imagery is used in connection with one's morals/to confirm one's moral superiority.

In this way, in the use of those pictures, you are adding to rather than detracting from people's suffering -- because you're using them as a tool or as a resource to show your moral superiority. It's the old Kant/treating people as means rather than ends in themselves.



Don't think I've ever gone so far as to say that the "harm" (your word, not mine) visited upon my by the government was immoral.

And no, I don't think harming other people is immoral. I don't have a set of morals in the way you use that word: universal rules that should guide behavior. I don't think those rules exist and I choose not to abide by what others claim to be moral.

I think that violence to other people is inevitable. And I think that moral codes deployed to deal with said violence turn in on themselves and become tools to propogate more harm to people.

So, how do you decide what is moral?

Do you even care about right and wrong?

[Wild Cobra]

FL did drug testing of welfare recipients, it was a huge, expensive failure

your assumption is that people on public assistance are frauds, cheats, moochers, who refuse to work, living well on public assistnace, so they should be assumed to be guilty, requiring pre-emptive punishment, and extremely high barriers to obtain public assistance. Your assumption(s) are wrong. GFY

I read that differently. As a complete success.

Many people didn't even attempt to get the benefits... There were such stories you know, but of course, stories advocating it as a failure isn't going to mention all the facts...

Do you seriously think that the majority of those who would test positive would even get on such a blacklist?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your inability to answer the question is duly noted.

The premise of the question is flawed. It assumes that there needs to be such a reckoning. I think the notion that there is a 'scheme of personal responsibility' that is is reasonable to hold everyone to is incredibly naive.

And not in a good way. When you start 'holding the poor accountable' all manner of unsavory things get bandied about. Slavery, eugenics and all sorts of shit. Thus my saying punitive in response to your need to 'hold them responsible.' You got an answer; I just see there is no wise answer.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I read that differently. As a complete success.

Many people didn't even attempt to get the benefits... There were such stories you know, but of course, stories advocating it as a failure isn't going to mention all the facts...

Do you seriously think that the majority of those who would test positive would even get on such a blacklist?

Objectively, it cost more than what it saved. It was ruled unconstitutional.

Such success.

I read that you are a moron.

[vy65]

The premise of the question is flawed. It assumes that there needs to be such a reckoning. I think the notion that there is a 'scheme of personal responsibility' that is is reasonable to hold everyone to is incredibly naive.

You need to explain yourself here. The question was: do you or do you not have a notion of personal responsibility? If it varies from person to person (which I think is what you're trying to say), why? In other words, why should certain people be more or less responsible for their actions, particularly when those actions have repercussions on others. And, who gets to decide each person's level of responsibility.

If the above is an incorrect description, then explain yourself.


And not in a good way. When you start 'holding the poor accountable' all manner of unsavory things get bandied about. Slavery, eugenics and all sorts of shit. Thus my saying punitive in response to your need to 'hold them responsible.' You got an answer; I just see there is no wise answer.

The question was about personal responsibility. You're spewing some inanity about eugenics as a response. Surely there has to be some middle ground? I'm simply asking for your beliefs on the topic. Again. And I'm beginning to think you're uncomfortable answering because you don't have a response.

[vy65]

You first.

I asked:

What do we do with the children of the people on food stamps?

You seem to be unsatisfied with your original answer, and pissy at me for "misrepresenting" your words. Now's your chance. Tell me what you really mean.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224425&page=13&p=6952671&viewfull=1#post6952671


I view not harming people as a basis for my morality.

"harm" can sometimes be something of an amorphous, abstract concept, sometimes it is obvious.

It is my direct assertion that most people can identify many kinds of harm just from looking at it, therefore an image of harm is fully relevant to making that case. If minimizing or avoiding harm is a basis for morality, then being able to generally agree on what is harmful is pretty important.

You have stated that you are harmed by having the government tax you. You find this harm immoral. Do you agree that actions that harm other human beings are generally immoral?


This is a statement of fact, not philosophy. It is quantifiable, and verifiable. It forms the basis of your critique.

"Vy65 uses horrible arguments in the real world to create the impression that he is far more intelligent than he really is."
"Vy65 deploys outright lies in the real world to create awe and fear in the people that listen to him."

Both are examples of quantifiable, verifiable statements.

Should I then hold up both of these statements as my truth, to be equal in veracity to yours?


Great, so explain your schema of personal responsibility. Please explain specifically how you hold people who are on welfare or are unable to support a family but who do have a family. In other words, what do you do with those people on or "near" welfare, who cannot financially support a family, but have one anyway? How are they held responsible for their actions?

Still haven't gotten a response . . .

[vy65]

I said 'your' philosopher. as in the possessive. now think about it and try again.

This is what you wrote: your philosopher without a lick of analysis behind it.

If that's not a possessive, then I think we have an ESL speaker who didn't do too well at night school on our hands.


And we can use whatever adjective if you do not like butthurt. Upset works just as well but you really do not counter the point. I never said your claims didn't matter because you are upset. I said that it is very obvious that you are motivated by being upset. You really are not very good at this as it is an obvious and important distinction. This is furthered by RG when he asks you for a shred of proof about his gain. You have nothing but your ass is still showing.

At the end of the day your 'standing behind your claims' has amounted to virtually nothing. You contribute little but snark. I hope you do your clients better.

Ok. Great.

[AntiChrist]

I'm pretty sure poor people in the US aren't starving. If anything, they're obese.

[pgardn]

My position is that I shouldn't be forced to subsidize other people's poor life decisions. When I fuck up, no one steps in to bail me out. I shouldn't be expected to extend a courtesy to others which I do not receive.

This is extraordinarily simplistic way of framing a problem. I don't like investment bankers decisions because I had to help bail them out. They made very poor decisions and I had to pay for it.

[DeadlyDynasty]

People generally don't like to fork over their hard-earned money to lazy, unmotivated people--and their unfortunate, hopeless spawn.

[vy65]

People generally don't like to fork over their hard-earned money to lazy, unmotivated people--and their unfortunate, hopeless spawn.

Murderer ...

[vy65]

This is extraordinarily simplistic way of framing a problem. I don't like investment bankers decisions because I had to help bail them out. They made very poor decisions and I had to pay for it.

Good point. Can't have one without the other . . . All for the good of the nation, right?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is what you wrote: your philosopher without a lick of analysis behind it.

If that's not a possessive, then I think we have an ESL speaker who didn't do too well at night school on our hands.



Ok. Great.

You quoted your philosopher without a lick of analysis behind it. It was more or less mental masturbation. Make sense now?

[vy65]

There's been plenty of analysis behind what I've posted. Try again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You need to explain yourself here. The question was: do you or do you not have a notion of personal responsibility? If it varies from person to person (which I think is what you're trying to say), why? In other words, why should certain people be more or less responsible for their actions, particularly when those actions have repercussions on others. And, who gets to decide each person's level of responsibility.

If the above is an incorrect description, then explain yourself.



The question was about personal responsibility. You're spewing some inanity about eugenics as a response. Surely there has to be some middle ground? I'm simply asking for your beliefs on the topic. Again. And I'm beginning to think you're uncomfortable answering because you don't have a response.

The question was about holding others responsible for their actions.

My scheme of personal responsibility is besides the point. We are talking about public policy.

Do I think that the governments role is to help those that are unable to help themselves? Yes, I do.

Do I think that it is the government's role to arbiter whose 'personal responsibility' warrants them deserving food aid? Fuck no.

You are talking about them having children that they should not have. In light of that how is discussion of eugenics inane? You are saying they should not have children. Do you know what eugenics is?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There's been plenty of analysis behind what I've posted. Try again.

No there wasn't but considering your standards of what constitutes an argument I am not surprised you find it that way.

[Th'Pusher]

Why are you so concerned with whether or not I'm attention whoring?

It helps me determine the fundamental accuracy of the things you post and the corresponding attention I should devote to your posts.

[RandomGuy]

People generally don't like to fork over their hard-earned money to lazy, unmotivated people--and their unfortunate, hopeless spawn.

Most people don't.

Then again, most people know that harming children is wrong.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Most people don't.

Then again, most people know that harming children is wrong.
Well then it's a good thing I don't harm any children. Quite the contrary, actually.

[RandomGuy]

As I have said before, I hope he puts better effort into his briefs. I can just see a clerk snickering reading his filings.

I can see it all now...


"Your honor, the plaintiff has presented video evidence that my client's car crashed into his house three times. I say that it was zero times, and that we cannot truly even know the truth about whether my client crashed into the house."

"Furthermore, when I said that the plaintiff was clearly at fault because his house crashed into my clients car, it was because of this book, by a dead French guy, that is all the evidence I need, and that you should clearly assume it is true, because if my interpretation of this dead guys assertions. The plaintiff did not prove these assertions wrong, so therefore they are all true."

"Finally, I ask that the case be dismissed, simply because my client did nothing wrong. Harming others is clearly not wrong, and therefore the entire case against him should be thrown out, because if nothing wrong happened, there is no case."


:lmao

[RandomGuy]

its an indictment of the sanctimonious moralization.


sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous
ˌsaNG(k)təˈmōnēəs/Submit
adjectivederogatory
1.
making a show of being morally superior to other people.



Why should I give a fuck about your or any other bottom feeder who sees me as a ticket to providing them with money


Who decides what sacrifice from whom?

... I don't believe in living to provide for the mass of human filth that is the poor.



Poor = people on the government dole (i.e., TANF and SNAP) = filth


Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.

I like that one too.

[RandomGuy]

Well then it's a good thing I don't harm any children. Quite the contrary, actually.

Of course you don't. We take care of the children you would harm. Lucky for them the rest of us know better than you do.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Of course you don't. We take care of the children you would harm. Lucky for them the rest of us know better than you do.
I started the Miami Children's Hospital truck for our company:lmao

[RandomGuy]

There's been plenty of analysis behind what I've posted. Try again.



such imagery is deployed in the real world to create the psychological drive for more suffering


So, you have a psychological study with data that shows this?

I call bullshit. Put up evidence.


No, I don't.

:lmao

There is plenty of "analysis" showing that 9-11 was an inside job. You should go hang out with them. They suck at putting together logically sound arguments too.

[RandomGuy]

I started the Miami Children's Hospital truck for our company:lmao

Sorry. You want to children harmed. You said it yourself.

Does withholding food for extended periods of time harm children or not?

Do you think if I told the people at the children's hospital what you said, they would think better of you?

[DeadlyDynasty]

RG, what is your job tbh? Do you save children and poor people like I do?:lol

[RandomGuy]

RG, what is your job tbh? Do you save children and poor people like I do?:lol

tbh fail.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Sorry. You want to children harmed. You said it yourself.

Does withholding food for extended periods of time harm children or not?

Do you think if I told the people at the children's hospital what you said, they would think better of you?
I don't work at the hospital, I secured the contract for the ambulance company that handles all their UCC's. I was also the lead medic they chose to run said truck. I've since left since I work my flight job fulltime now (including many pediatric critical care flights).

What do you do for children and po folks, now that I just crushed your moral superiority soapbox?

[DeadlyDynasty]

tbh fail.
What do you think paramedics do, dumbass?

[RandomGuy]

I don't work at the hospital, I secured the contract for the ambulance company that handles all their UCC's. I was also the lead medic they chose to run said truck. I've since left since I work my flight job fulltime now (including many pediatric critical care flights).

What do you do for children and po folks, now that I just crushed your moral superiority soapbox?

That isn't really an answer to my question.

Does withholding food for an extended period of time, i.e. starvation, harm children?

It is a pretty simple question for a paramedic, I would hope.

[DeadlyDynasty]

That isn't really an answer to my question.

Does withholding food for an extended period of time, i.e. starvation, harm children?

It is a pretty simple question for a paramedic, I would hope.

Only a simpleton would fall for your loaded questions. Did you not say people should not have kids if they don't have the means to support them? Yet you're intellectually dishonest and willing to encourage said behavior with even more free nom-noms. You don't even understand your own agenda.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Also, what do do for a living, again?

[RandomGuy]

Only a simpleton would fall for your loaded questions. Did you not say people should not have kids if they don't have the means to support them? Yet you're intellectually dishonest and willing to encourage said behavior with even more free nom-noms. You don't even understand your own agenda.

How is it loaded.

Your words, exactly, with a link:


Children who should've never been born ... Yeah, let 'em starve-

I stated that you wanted children to be harmed. You objected, as if I had said something incorrect.

I am merely trying to determine if a paramedic understands that starvation is harmful. Let's assume so.

[TSA]

Contributing to welfare should be an option one checks on a tax return.

[RandomGuy]

Also, what do do for a living, again?

I evaluate risks against benefits, read fine print, and seek original evidence to support assertions. I am very good at it.

[RandomGuy]

Contributing to welfare should be an option one checks on a tax return.

Most economists would disagree.

Do you think allowing children to starve to death is moral?

[RandomGuy]

Also, what do do for a living, again?

FFS

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1813

[DeadlyDynasty]

How is it loaded.

Your words, exactly, with a link:



I stated that you wanted children to be harmed. You objected, as if I had said something incorrect.

I am merely trying to determine if a paramedic understands that starvation is harmful. Let's assume so.
Just admit it bro, there's a fat steak in your underoos when you learned what I've done (and continue to do) for kids.:lol

Why did Bob Barker want people to spay and neuter their pets? Did he hate animals? Oh shit, I just compared people to cats and dogs--Nazi behavior, amirite?

[monosylab1k]

:lmao following DD into the NFL Forum

[RandomGuy]

Just admit it bro, there's a fat steak in your underoos when you learned what I've done (and continue to do) for kids.:lol

Why did Bob Barker want people to spay and neuter their pets? Did he hate animals? Oh shit, I just compared people to cats and dogs--Nazi behavior, amirite?

I think it is nice what you do.

You seem uncomfortable with your earlier words. Why is that?

[RandomGuy]

:lmao following DD into the NFL Forum

Honestly, I was just wondering if the people who he talks football with knew he was a ginormous douchebag. I am not a football kind of guy, stopped caring about it along time ago.

[DeadlyDynasty]

I think it is nice what you do.

You seem uncomfortable with your earlier words. Why is that?
Hypocrite much? I don't like seeing thousands of children have no future because their 17 y/o crackhead mothers and absentee fathers made a mistake. You don't like that either (your words), but are more than happy with the "oh well, shit happens--just throw more food stamps at them and encourage them."

[RandomGuy]

Only a simpleton would fall for your loaded questions. Did you not say people should not have kids if they don't have the means to support them? Yet you're intellectually dishonest and willing to encourage said behavior with even more free nom-noms. You don't even understand your own agenda.

Free food does tend to encourage laziness. (edit) to a point (end edit)

Granted. That intellectually honest for you?

I understand my agenda very well. I am an accountant, with about 40 hours of graduate level finance and economics under my belt. If you were to ask my professors they would think rather highly of my ability to learn and understand the abstract concepts.

I am comfortable with a percentage of welfare going to lazy shits, *if* help gets to people who really need it.

I dont' think that letting someone who got laid off or sick with no income starve to death with their kids is right.

Costs weighed with benefits. Pretty simple.

[RandomGuy]

Hypocrite much? I don't like seeing thousands of children have no future because their 17 y/o crackhead mothers and absentee fathers made a mistake. You don't like that either (your words), but are more than happy with the "oh well, shit happens--just throw more food stamps at them and encourage them."

Thats just it, though. You might encourage laziness, but do you think that most people growing up in that environment think it is optimal?

Quantify it.

As noted before there is a wealth of data on the subject, economics, welfare, sociology, psychology.

I don't think you have read any formal peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Have you?

[DeadlyDynasty]

Be back later, my Jimmy Johns order just arrived and it's high time I cruised by the Camillus House, roll my windows down, and slowly eat my sandwich in front of the bums.

[RandomGuy]

Hypocrite much?


Children who should've never been born ... Yeah, let 'em starve-

I [save children by being a paramedic on] many pediatric critical care flights).

Obviously none of them are poor. Otherwise, I'm sure you would throw them out of the helicopter. That'll show em for expecting all that free health care.

[TSA]

Most economists would disagree.

Do you think allowing children to starve to death is moral?

Every economist would agree those who can't afford children should not have them. I do not think it is moral to let children starve. I also don't think I have a moral obligation to pay for irresponsible people who birth these kids. Tough one for me but since I'm forced to I guess it's moot

[RandomGuy]

Miami Children's Hospital Faces Severe Cuts in Senate Budget Plan


One of the greatest issues facing the legislature this session is the potential for Medicaid
cuts, more specifically the proposed cuts for the Low Income Pool (LIP) Program which
Miami Children’s Hospital (MCH) receives. Miami Children’s stands to lose more than $5.4
million with the proposed State Senate budget plan. Miami Children’s and other Florida
medical facilities that treat the state’s neediest citizens and the uninsured are facing $209
million in cuts this year. Furthermore, the Senate plan will forfeit $85 million in critical federal
matching funding earmarked for the state’s health care safety net

http://www.mch.com/newsEvents/pressDetails.aspx?ID=144&language=EN&printerfriendly=true

As a private, not-for-profit, charitable institution, Miami Children's Hospital cares for over 185,000 children each year, of whom 2/3 (Over 60%) are Medicaid beneficiaries. Initial analysis, based on the Senate proposal, shows that the MCH LIP Payment is projected to be reduced by $5,496,938 million which could hurt the hospital’s ability to care for the children of Florida. What this means for MCH is the potential for dramatic reduction in services.


I guess if they starve to death we don't have to pay for their health care, right?

Win/win for the oppressed rich people who have to pay higher taxes to prop up these lazy shits.

(rolls eyes)

[RandomGuy]

Every economist would agree those who can't afford children should not have them. I do not think it is moral to let children starve. I also don't think I have a moral obligation to pay for irresponsible people who birth these kids. Tough one for me but since I'm forced to I guess it's moot

What about the people who have money at the time, but lose their jobs?

What about the people who have money at the time, but get sick/hurt?

[RandomGuy]

your ipse dixit



such imagery is deployed in the real world to create the psychological drive for more suffering


So, you have a psychological study with data that shows this?



No, I don't.


Ipse dixit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Roman politician Marcus Tullius Cicero coined the phrase Ipse dixit, which translates from the Latin as "He, himself, said it."
Ipse dixit, Latin for "He, himself, said it," is a term used to identify and describe a sort of arbitrary dogmatic statement which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid.[1] It is also called "the bare assertion fallacy."
Ipse dixit denies that an issue is debatable. In other words, "that's just the way it is."

[DeadlyDynasty]

Obviously none of them are poor. Otherwise, I'm sure you would throw them out of the helicopter. That'll show em for expecting all that free health care.

Don't work on choppers, just fixed-wing.


Miami Children's Hospital Faces Severe Cuts in Senate Budget Plan



http://www.mch.com/newsEvents/pressDetails.aspx?ID=144&language=EN&printerfriendly=true


I guess if they starve to death we don't have to pay for their health care, right?

Win/win for the oppressed rich people who have to pay higher taxes to prop up these lazy shits.

(rolls eyes)

I don't work at MCH you fucking moron...I told you that just a few posts ago.

Consider them collateral damage from all the irresponsible decisions their parent(s) made--but who can blame them when you encourage such behavior, right? Here's some food stamps, Section 8 housing, and a crackpipe. Don't bother working, just keep sticking your hand out and have a sad-puppy face.

[RandomGuy]

Speaking of ipse dipshit....


I see that you quoted me in post #312.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224425&page=11&p=6950422&viewfull=1#post6950422



If you're going to quote me and not show why I said what I said, the viewers can't make an informed choice on who to believe so here's the info even though it's off-topic here.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487

You're using the tactics that sophists use.

I see you're also talking about 9/11 so I'd better post that info too.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746

:lmao

Almost missed this one. I do owe him one. I had to look up the word sophist when he first used it. That came in handy.

[RandomGuy]

Don't work on choppers, just fixed-wing.

I don't work at MCH you fucking moron...I told you that just a few posts ago.

Consider them collateral damage from all the irresponsible decisions their parent(s) made--but who can blame them when you encourage such behavior, right? Here's some food stamps, Section 8 housing, and a crackpipe. Don't bother working, just keep sticking your hand out and have a sad-puppy face.

I know you don't work there.

They seem to think that poor children are worth saving. They devote hundreds of millions of dollars to it.

What do you think the people you work with would say about your opinion of some of the kids you ferry around?

I am sure that you have probably transported at least one welfare recipient in your career.

FWIW:
Your statement is a logical fallacy as well, not that I think you care much. Look up the definition of strawman.

[RandomGuy]

Here's some food stamps, Section 8 housing, and a crackpipe.

DRUG ADDICTION: A MEDICAL PROBLEM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253880/
Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1963 January; 53(1): 127.

Addiction Now Defined As Brain Disorder, Not Behavior Problem

"At its core, addiction isn't just a social problem or a moral problem or a criminal problem. It's a brain problem whose behaviors manifest in all these other areas," said Dr. Michael Miller, past president of ASAM who oversaw the development of the new definition. "Many behaviors driven by addiction are real problems and sometimes criminal acts. But the disease is about brains, not drugs. It's about underlying neurology, not outward actions."


I think the medical professionals who study this might take issue with that statement.

[DeadlyDynasty]

I know you don't work there.

They seem to think that poor children are worth saving. They devote hundreds of millions of dollars to it.

What do you think the people you work with would say about your opinion of some of the kids you ferry around?

I am sure that you have probably transported at least one welfare recipient in your career.

FWIW:
Your statement is a logical fallacy as well, not that I think you care much. Look up the definition of strawman.
Most of the kids I transported at that job were Medicaid ones. I helped them and was more than happy to do it. It's my job. Doesn't change the fact that the majority of those kids will have no chance in life and were products of irresponsibility. All I can do is hope poor people don't have kids--what else can I do?

Also, do you just cry "strawman" with everyone on this forum that argues with you? Is that your rape whistle?

[TSA]

What about the people who have money at the time, but lose their jobs?

What about the people who have money at the time, but get sick/hurt?

Let's stick to the irresponsible people that we are forced to support please.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Let's stick to the irresponsible people that we are forced to support please.
NO, it's much easier to exploit children to further the agenda

[FuzzyLumpkins]

NO, it's much easier to exploit children to further the agenda

Neither is a good representation. The demographic on the dole is predominantly the disabled and elderly.

Logan's Run perhaps?

[DeadlyDynasty]

Logan's Run perhaps?
No bueno, I just turned 30:lol

[pgardn]

I started the Miami Children's Hospital truck for our company:lmao

So you attempt to help kids.
But you would rather not help the minority kids, especially blacks.
Correct?

[pgardn]

Let's stick to the irresponsible people that we are forced to support please.

you mean the investment bankers?

[TSA]

The demographic on the dole is predominantly the disabled and elderly.

neither of which is giving birth to children they can't feed.

[DeadlyDynasty]

So you attempt to help kids.
But you would rather not help the minority kids, especially blacks.
Correct?
:lolWhy do you even attempt to crowbar your transparent line of questioning into threads anymore? Serious question.

[TSA]

you mean the investment bankers?

Completely off topic, but fuck them too.

[pgardn]

:lolWhy do you even attempt to crowbar your transparent line of questioning into threads anymore? Serious question.

Serious question...?

Sure.
Coming from a contradictory, bipolar medic saving lives.

[pgardn]

Completely off topic, but fuck them too.

But we don't like to spend our hard earned money on people who make bad decisions. I'm pretty sure I read this.

So start a new thread on rich folks who make bad decisions we pay for if it does not fit. But no, while we are at it fuck them also. But not really because they are rich and did their deeds in a crafty manner. They were trying harder to cheat the system so...they are higher up on the parasite scale?

[DeadlyDynasty]

Serious question...?

Sure.
Coming from a contradictory, bipolar medic saving lives.
You strike me as a female. Too much emotion behind your posts.

[pgardn]

You strike me as a female. Too much emotion behind your posts.

you strike me as a dick.

A small infected dick.

Mr. Cool dick saving lives in an emotionless manner.

[DeadlyDynasty]

you strike me as a dick.

A small infected dick.
This certainly begs a few questions

[pgardn]

This certainly begs a few questions

A cool dick saving lives of people he hates... No disconnect here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

neither of which is giving birth to children they can't feed.

read the sentence that you edited out before the one you quoted. I will give you a hint: the operative word is neither. Now what are the two things I am alluding to when I say 'neither?' How does that pertain to what I am saying?

[DeadlyDynasty]

A cool dick saving lives of people he hates... No disconnect here.
Yeah, I'm a dick. That's my charm.

[vy65]

The question was about holding others responsible for their actions.

My scheme of personal responsibility is besides the point. We are talking about public policy.

Do I think that the governments role is to help those that are unable to help themselves? Yes, I do.

Do I think that it is the government's role to arbiter whose 'personal responsibility' warrants them deserving food aid? Fuck no.

You are talking about them having children that they should not have. In light of that how is discussion of eugenics inane? You are saying they should not have children. Do you know what eugenics is?

Of course your ideas on personal responsibility are relevant. Public opinion shapes policy.

Just keep ducking the question.

[vy65]

I like that one too.

Neat. Still haven't answered my question. I've figured out that you don't have a response.

It's cool though. I'd totally try shitting on people more successful than me while asking them to foot the bill for shit I thought was a good idea if I was some piece of shit accountant.

Now if you could post some more dictionary.com definitions of irrelevant terms that'd be great ...

[vy65]

RG, what is your job tbh? Do you save children and poor people like I do?:lol

Tbh I've probably done more for these filthy people than he has. Required pro bono work is a bitch ...

[vy65]

Also, do you just cry "strawman" with everyone on this forum that argues with you? Is that your rape whistle?

Shaqdunk.gif

[vy65]

Tbh I'm debating the merits of quoting some of the "zingers" in this thread as my sig. Or maybe having a list of people I've "owned" in this thread. Like a "vy murder list." Definitely would help with my cred amongst some of the regulars here like RG or fuzzy. Definitely wouldn't make me seem like a cheesedick douchebag ...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Of course your ideas on personal responsibility are relevant. Public opinion shapes policy.

Just keep ducking the question.

You can characterize my declining of answering your questions as you wish but it is not going to make your question relevant.

Public opinion shapes it but it does not make it the best course of action. It shapes it because of reciprocity in a democratic society. A personal anecdote is far besides the point.

When it comes to sharing extra food how you rate someone elses methodology is irrelevant.

[vy65]

You can characterize my declining of answering your questions as you wish but it is not going to make your question relevant.

Public opinion shapes it but it does not make it the best course of action. It shapes it because of reciprocity in a democratic society. A personal anecdote is far besides the point.

When it comes to sharing extra food how you rate someone elses methodology is irrelevant.

Dude, I'm so fucking proud of you. I can't believe that you've admitted to not answering the question at the center of this thread. Now that you've admitted you have nothing to contribute , kindly shut the fuck up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Tbh I'm debating the merits of quoting some of the "zingers" in this thread as my sig. Or maybe having a list of people I've "owned" in this thread. Like a "vy murder list." Definitely would help with my cred amongst some of the regulars here like RG or fuzzy. Definitely wouldn't make me seem like a cheesedick douchebag ...

here you go:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Kleenex-small-box.jpg/200px-Kleenex-small-box.jpg

[vy65]

here you go:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Kleenex-small-box.jpg/200px-Kleenex-small-box.jpg

Zing. The only thing that would have made that better is if you :lol vy is a shitty lawyer :lol

[vy65]

Guess that's what happens when you join the fuzzy fan club ... Amirite?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Dude, I'm so fucking proud of you. I can't believe that you've admitted to not answering the question at the center of this thread. Now that you've admitted you have nothing to contribute , kindly shut the fuck up.

:lol Center of the thread? That is not for you to decide, nitwit.

I told you I don't need to know someones methodology to share food from a public policy standpoint. It cuts right to the heart of your question's premise yet you just blithely come back with this shit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Guess that's what happens when you join the fuzzy fan club ... Amirite?

you need a benzo or something. im a fan of klonopin myself.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Tbh I've probably done more for these filthy people than he has. Required pro bono work is a bitch ...
I try to keep them alive and you try to keep them out of prison...............but we're the murderous Nazi bastards.


I love this forum.:lol

[vy65]

I try to keep them alive and you try to keep them out of prison...............but we're the murderous Nazi bastards.


I love this forum.:lol

Not prison, but getting restraining orders keeping abusive husbands and boyfriends (who, by the way, are welfare recipients) from beating the shit out of they women.

But hey, RGs professors fucking love him ... Kinda makes that ambulance ride pale in comparison, tbh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So do we now count the probation folks spearing trash on the highways environmentalists?

Given your druthers we both know you wouldn't do a damn thing pro bono for those you term 'filth.'

[RandomGuy]

Most of the kids I transported at that job were Medicaid ones. I helped them and was more than happy to do it. It's my job. Doesn't change the fact that the majority of those kids will have no chance in life and were products of irresponsibility. All I can do is hope poor people don't have kids--what else can I do?

Also, do you just cry "strawman" with everyone on this forum that argues with you? Is that your rape whistle?

Strawman Logical Fallacy is a form of lying. People do that a lot here, especially Conservative Avengers with overdeveloped outrage glands.

Did you bother to look it up?

[RandomGuy]

Let's stick to the irresponsible people that we are forced to support please.

What percentage of the people on those programs fall into this category?

How do you identify them?

Any solid data would be appreciated. (hint hint)

I would love to see those kinds of people get into some kind of treatment for any addiction, and get them into some jobs.