Food stamp cuts hit 9 million elderly and disabled people

[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/show...=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 s, 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 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 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 bull 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 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:
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 ing horrible human being.

Keep walking that back. We all know exactly what you meant.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=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 s, 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 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 s, 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 ing 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 cir stances.

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 . 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 uncons utional.

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 . 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/show...=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 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.