http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677
53% is spent on people who look like this:
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:
Yet another worthless human being making bad choices like sitting in that ing chair all day.
18% is spent on people who look like this:
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 s bags, 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%
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.
I most explicitly think: letting children starve is horrible. I desire as little of it as possible.
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?
You're clearly not getting it. Do you honestly not see how ed 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 ed 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.
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 , but 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 at ude 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 recons ute 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 cons utes 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.
Those aren't the same thing.
I can't see it, because it is not true. You saying it is over and over is no different than the jeebo s who spout biblical literalism and that the universe is 6,000 years old over and over and over, despite the evidence to the contrary.
Repe ion of a lie will not make it the truth no matter how many times you say it. I called bull , 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?
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.
What evidence to the contrary? All I see is you saying "nuh uh."
What lie? Something isn't a lie by virtue of your ipse dixit
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!!!"
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.
So, letting children starve to death is moral?Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy
"Broods of failure"
Funny way to talk about children.
What is your solution for the children of this "filth"?
Yes or no will do.
Also not the same thing
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
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
Person A = RandomguyDescription of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and subs utes 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 cons ute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
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, .
Then by all means elaborate.
What *do* you mean by "let the children starve"?
Do tell, liar.
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 cir stances. Pretty easy for me to answer that one.
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.
This conversation is over until you do what I say.
You should get like minded people together, and start a charity.
Times up though. Time to take my kids to the park.
So you think the answer is "no".
Thank you.
It was over a long time ago, you lying sack of ignorant pus.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
