Reply With Quote
Nobody's done mouth to mouth since the 80's
No need for that anyways, most of time 2mg of Narcan wakes them up--I wonder why that is?
dont play dumb because your not... crying, righto.
Again :
How would it feel giving mouth to mouth blowing on those big black lips? ( yes I know there are better methods)
Is it frustrating reviving the rats knowing they will go back to their vermin ways? You are saving vermin, correct ?
Nobody's done mouth to mouth since the 80's
No need for that anyways, most of time 2mg of Narcan wakes them up--I wonder why that is?
What did I put in ()? Fruitcake?Nobody's done mouth to mouth since the 80's
No need for that anyways, most of time 2mg of Narcan wakes them up--I wonder why that is?
The big black lips was an obvious attempt on my part to reveal your dislike for African Americans.
So stop the lame attempts to avoid your ambivalent stance.
Again:
How does it feel saving vermin? They are likely to go right back to their nests, procreate, and produce more criminal vermin, right? I don't give a fk how you save them.
You are so terrible at this, and definitely the most transparent person on this forum.
As for your loaded questions, the answer is I'm just following orders...Get it?!
No, because I (incorrectly) assumed everyone agreed with the central premise that people should been held responsible for their actions. Apparently responsibility isn't a value several posters on here believe applies to those on welfare. What I thought was a given apparently is simply not a belief shared by many on this forum.
Why do you all think that I devote the same energy to this forum that I do to my legal practice? This is a diversion for me; I don't pour over my posts the same way I pour over a pleading. Do you honestly think I have the time to invest in vetting each post the way I vet a complaint?
Sure its transparent.
As for your loaded questions, the answer is I'm just following orders...Get it?!
Loaded, no. You set your standards, we are examining your problem.
No I don't get it as all wannabe Nazis don't follow orders.
So if you could secretly sterilize the vermin, would you? Without getting caught, if we could rely on you to play a role in making the world a better place would you?
If it was a legal practice and in my medical protocols, sure I would do it. I'm all for making the world a better place. Sometimes that means addition by subtraction.
Now that was not so bad!
And of course we could discuss how you would know who to sterilize. Like are there any blacks or Jews worth saving and letting them have children. But that's another topic.
OK then.
I understand.
Can someone not value personal responsibility while also being able to perform a cost benefit analysis and come to the determination that the cost of not providing food subsistence to the needy outweighs the benefits - in this case enforcing personal responsibility? I think that was clearly RG's position, yet you did nothing to refute it. Instead you attempted to shift the conversation to accusing him of an obsession with disaster pornography. Not something I'd expect from someone trained in argumentation.
Not at all, but If you're going to take the time to respond, I'd expect you to be able to string together a more coherent argument without multiple logical fallacies.
So suppose its legal to sterilize certain people you find worthless. Maybe you helped craft the law and legalize it. We know from your prior posts blacks and Jews would fall into the worthless (or detrimental to society) category in many or all?cases. We could then examine how you would determine which blacks and Jews should be allowed to have children, if any.
Another time. Perhaps it would be none and the posting would end quickly.
Anytime you wanna leave the land of make-believe and rejoin this thread, feel free.
Setting up little thought problems can be very revealing. Obviously you will not produce such a law or set the standards for the law. But if you could and did... It's sort of a what degree of hate do you have, what is a worthless life exercise. It is germane to all this back and forth in this thread. As wise as you are, I should think you would agree.
Later.
For some reason whenever i read your posts i hear Will Petersen's voice from Manhunter in all its faux-righteous glory.You'd sterilize those people, WOULDN'T YOU? WOULDN'T YOU YOU SON OF A ?!
HI-FI, can i get an amen?
As a preliminary matter, the disaster pornography bit and the issue of responsibility are wholly separate issues. Agreed. But to suggest that I was responsible for the obfuscation is bull . RG sprayed pictures of starving kids, not me. He did so ostensibly to prove a point (although I still don't know what). The disaster pornography was a response to what RG did; it had noting to do with my original claims about personal responsibility. This thread got convoluted, but I ain't the guy responsible for that.
As for your other point, it's hard for me to think that the result of this cost-benefit analysis is nothing but lip service to the notion that people should be responsible for their actions all the while subsidizing their poor behavior. And it's disenguine to say that was RGs initial claim when it took nearly 18 pages to get an actual response out of him.
To your question, I would rather see people who deserve welfare not receive it if it stops subsidizing the welfare queen rather than subsidizing the welfare queen in order to make sure worthy recipients receive aid.
Ok, we have some place to start then.
How much do we spend on these specific programs? Where do I find it in the federal budget?
Can you give me some more specific names? That would help find them, to get specifics to fix them.
'Hold them responsible for their actions' is just a nebulous phrase that means just about nothing in the context of public policy.
What actions should they be responsible for? Please be specific.
This is exactly what I am getting at when I talk about you being punitive. From a policy standpoint I do not care what they have done in teh past. I am concerned about what they are doing now and moving forward. Your standpoint is akin to holding a child responsible for the sin of the father or debtors prison.
No it's not. It means not providing welfare to people who had kids despite not having the financial means to care for said kids. Hard to get more concrete and specific, as a matter of policy, than that.
Ummm, they should be responsible for the decision to have children despite not having the financial wherewithal to provide for them. Did you honestly just ask this question?
Funny that living with the consequences of your actions is considered punitive. In the real world, we call that responsibility.
But we get it, as a policy matter, you'd subsidize pretty shifty behavior and have other people foot the bill.
And your standpoint is akin to a massive subsidy for unfit parents to breed and gummy society up with broods of failure. I'd rather be a bit more draconian in the hopes of deterring irresponsible behavior. But I get where you're coming from - its easy to be magnaminous when other people are footing the bill.
Again, more strawmen, and laughably dishonest. Even boutons can agree with the principle of personal responsibility, and that says a lot. When you have to lie that badly and obviously, you do not make your case look very strong. Your call though.
As I have said, I do argue for holding people responsible for their actions. There is a limit to that, but, in principle I fully agree.
You have yet to say what exactly you want changed.
Not unlike the twoofers who can't pony up a coherent theory.
So how do we identify these people? Be specific.
Which welfare? There are dozens of programs under this aegis.
What specific benefits do you want eliminated to achieve your ueberutopia?
^ what do you do with people who have children while relying on federal welfare to subsidize their decision to do so?
My understanding is nothing, right? Cost of doing business?
I have no idea what this thread is about, first time I've visited it, but it, always a good time....
btw scro, not sure if you are a Live and Die in LA fan, but i've owned that soundtrack for quite awhile, Wang Chung's greatest moment.
Off the top of my head, have the social worker or state employee responsible for said individual keep track of whether said person has children while on welfare. Eliminate all benefits for abusers.
*braces for dictionary.com definitions and/or starving Africans*
on my phone right now so copy/pasting data is not something ill be doing at this time. You're more than welcome to answer your own questions if you wish.
Changing gears, I'm curious how much time you guys who don't mind footing the bill for the less fortunate/lazy put in personally to help these people. What outside of what you're taxed do you contribute to them?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions