Food stamp cuts hit 9 million elderly and disabled people

[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 cir stances 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 cir stances 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 re ing 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 re ing 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]

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

[Wild Cobra]

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!

that's telling me

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

[Clipper Nation]

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 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 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]

Welfare Cobra

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

[vy65]

did you know his 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.

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.

[Wild Cobra]

I see...

You call all respectable women, a ...

No wonder you can't get any.