Quote :

"Its also not fair that they were born in abject poverty."

Who the fuck in the United States is born in abject poverty?

2/7/2009 4:18:58 PM

...

people who use food stamps

2/7/2009 4:32:29 PM

Quote :

"Jesus said that the poor will always be with us. This doesn't mean they have to be fat."

Damn Right

Quote :

"In fact, the "stupid, lazy" bit you guys keep pulling out is just y'all's rationalizations to continue to support a system that so obviously perpetuates disparity and suffering."

This is the biggest crock of horseshit i've ever heard

We should just rename this thread to "Bridgets boo-hooing about the poor" thread

Quote :

"I don't understand how people can work hard five, six days a week, subsidize everybody else's way of life by not making more than 18, 19 thousand dollars a year. And then people wanna talk shit about them for running out of food stamps."

Cause they obviously did not budget their money right. With $19K a year while they won't be living like the Gotti's;
but they have (except for living in say Manhattan) enough money to cover the essentials. Perhaps they need to cut that cell phone
bill back or think harder before popping out that 5th kid.

Bridget seems to have an issue differentiating between the single mother laid off with four kids and needs a "safety net" to feed her
children a couple months while she gets a new job. This being the original reason for welfare and food stamps. Instead she
has no issue with those lazy irresponsible individual using food stamps and welfare like a "safety hammock" to subsidize
their lifestyle for years on out so they can afford good/services that belong in the category of "luxury".

2/7/2009 4:34:16 PM

But but but she wrote 400 words about it... didn't you read it??!?!

2/7/2009 4:57:36 PM

Quote :

"I don't understand how people can work hard five, six days a week, subsidize everybody else's way of life by not making more than 18, 19 thousand dollars a year."

I see the source of your failure to understand. Your mistake is thinking that those living on food stamps actually work five, six days a week. According to government statistics, the working poor do not actually work, averaging less than 20 hours a week.

It was under the old capitalist system of the 19th century that the poor worked hard 60 to 80 hour weeks and eventually emerged with the skills to escape poverty. The current mixed-system imposes burdens upon employers and therefore does not produce enough work for everyone, so the poorest among us languish in unemployment and remain trapped in poverty for generations.

2/7/2009 8:01:56 PM

Quote :

"You said, " If someone loses their house because they bought a hummer, they are not rich, they are poor." Which is 100% wrong. If you owned your own house in the first place, and had the money to buy the hummer, YOU ARE RICH. Sure, after you lost your house because you spent your money on an expensive and unnecessary car, you're now poor, but I'm not talking about afterwords. Duh. Are you trolling? Poor people don't own their own house and could only dream of having the cash to buy a hummer. How the fuck could you be so goddamn stupid? For you to say that my statement here is complete nonsense, is more laughably ironic than anything I can think of. Who the fuck do you think you are? "

So I guess you don't actually understand what "rich" and "poor" mean.

Quote :

"Apples and oranges. Other countries generally don't count as comparisons, because they aren't america. They don't have our values. They may not even have the concept of individuals and private property. If think it's so good "over there", THEN GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY. "

lol

So I guess that Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Canada, the UK, Ireland, and Italy are not comparable to the US in terms of their people? Which one of these countries comes close to not having a concept of "individuals and property." Hahaha

You just lost any credibility you had left.

Quote :

""Your theory on why mexicans seem to work harder is wrong." No, he makes a good point, whereas you just foam bullshit. "

If Mexicans are such hard workers, why isn't Mexico a paragon of luxury and wealth? Are their poor people lazy and stupid too? Could it just be that the type of person, mexican or otherwise, that would give up everything they have to live in another country where they barely speak the language and everyone hates them is naturally going to be more motivated than their peer who doesn't have this desire in the first place?

[Edited on February 7, 2009 at 9:09 PM. Reason : ]

2/7/2009 9:05:57 PM

Quote :

"To eliminate poverty would mean to eliminate the ability of certain sectors of society to make bad decisions."

How so? Consider a post-scarcity world. Why should poverty exist in that context? Nobody worries about distributing vastly abundant resources. Poor folks breathe air as freely as the rich. The amount of matter and energy required to satisfy every human's consumption desires are cosmically insignificant. The universe wouldn't blink an eye.

Quote :

"People don't get criticized for buying nice things, they get criticized for buying nice things they can't afford."

As you know, I consider this fairly irrelevant. I want equal consumption for all. If the industrious CEO gets nice things, so should the lethargic stoner.

Quote :

"So when people give these folks shit for running out of food stamps, its because they already stick to a food stamp budget themselves and do just fine."

I garantee you lots of people who complain about food stamps don't stick to anything like a food stamp budget.

Quote :

"I still think advertising is a waste of time."

So companies are spending millions and millions of dollars for shits and giggles?

Quote :

"THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SUFFERING."

Not neccesarily. Either extinction or reengineering could end it. Both would come at a cost.

2/7/2009 9:33:13 PM

Quote :

"If Mexicans are such hard workers, why isn't Mexico a paragon of luxury and wealth? Are their poor people lazy and stupid too? Could it just be that the type of person, mexican or otherwise, that would give up everything they have to live in another country where they barely speak the language and everyone hates them is naturally going to be more motivated than their peer who doesn't have this desire in the first place?"

Being a hard worker doesn't translate directly into success and wealth. I just suggested that the Mexican poor people who are immigrating to the US have a different work ethic. A work ethic that US poor people do not have. This is because the Mexican Govt doesn't have social programs, and poor Mexicans have to work and fend for themselves. This contrasts to second and third generations of poor Americans who have subsisted on Govt handouts and take every thing for granted.

2/7/2009 10:14:43 PM

^ That makes little sense.

Firstly, if working hard doesn't translate in to success and wealth, then why would ANYONE work hard?

Secondly, if the reason you think mexicans are hard workers in the US is because of Mexican gov. policies, then that would mean Mexicans are harder workers than Americans, do you have any evidence for this?

2/7/2009 10:20:03 PM

I don't have any evidence that Mexicans are harder workers. In my life time people in general have characterized Mexicans as hard workers.

Quote :

"Firstly, if working hard doesn't translate in to success and wealth, then why would ANYONE work hard?"

You would work hard if it meant the difference between eating and not eating, or better yet your child having dinner or no dinner. It is possible to work hard but still have small pay. This is generally the condition for poor uneducated people.

Quote :

"Secondly, if the reason you think mexicans are hard workers in the US is because of Mexican gov. policies, then that would mean Mexicans are harder workers than Americans, do you have any evidence for this?"

Maybe I have been speaking too generically. Poor Mexicans have better work ethic than Poor Americans. I can't prove this statement. But I believe this is a common stereotype that has been placed on poor Mexican immigrants that currently work in the US. Do you disagree?

2/7/2009 10:32:01 PM

Quote :

" But I believe this is a common stereotype that has been placed on poor Mexican immigrants that currently work in the US. Do you disagree? "

I disagree that it's because of Mexico government's policies.

2/7/2009 10:34:37 PM

Quote :

"This is because the Mexican Govt doesn't have social programs, and poor Mexicans have to work and fend for themselves."

Though they're not identical to the ones there, I assure you the Mexican government does have social programs.

2/7/2009 10:38:07 PM

Quote :

"Ok. Well if you say something and then say you didn't say it....."

You are a hopeless troll.
Show me where I said that, "charities expand overnight to cover everyone's welfare benefits," or, "previously retarded learn lessons and get jobs".....
Oh wait, you can't? That's because I never did say them. You set up a straw-man and everyone knows it. Simply repeating that I did doesn't make it true. Show me. Show me where I said that. (You can't)

Quote :

"You said, "If someone loses their house because they bought a hummer, they are not rich, they are poor." Which is 100% wrong. If you owned your own house in the first place, and had the money to buy the hummer, YOU ARE RICH. Sure, after you lost your house because you spent your money on an expensive and unnecessary car, you're now poor, but I'm not talking about afterwords. Duh. Are you trolling? Poor people don't own their own house and could only dream of having the cash to buy a hummer. How the fuck could you be so goddamn stupid? For you to say that my statement here is complete nonsense, is more laughably ironic than anything I can think of. Who the fuck do you think you are?"

Quote :

"So I guess you don't actually understand what "rich" and "poor" mean."

No, you clearly don't.
But please, enlighten us all -- what do you think the definitions of "rich" and "poor" are? No, really, define them. Why are you being such a fucking idiot? If you disagree, at least have the fucking balls to explain yourself. Anyone else see what moron is saying here? I mean, what the fuck? Any 3-year-old knows what "rich" and "poor" means. Apparently, moron does not. (My, what an appropriate name...)

Quote :

"Which one of these countries"

None of those countries are america. Period. Therefore is it apples and oranges. Most all comparison versus other countries are completely irrelevant because the playing field is fundamentally different and should remain so. Nice try, though. If you like those countries better, you should move there.

Quote :

"Your theory on why mexicans seem to work harder is wrong." "No, he makes a good point, whereas you just foam bullshit."

The point he was making, in general, is that "necessity is the mother of invention."

2/8/2009 12:12:21 PM

^ You have problems dude.

You definitely argued that private industry would take over government welfare and that people would somehow learn to take care of themselves without government welfare.

Yes, I know it sounds retarded to have your bullshit read back to you so I understand your shock.

Quote :

"No, them learning how to be responsible for themselves is paramount. Besides, it's not like there wouldn't still be charity -- it would just be funded solely from private sources. "

2/8/2009 12:26:04 PM

^

Quote :

"You definitely argued that private industry would take over government welfare and that people would somehow learn to take care of themselves without government welfare."

No shit that's what I'm arguing. But where did I say that, "charities expand overnight to cover everyone's welfare benefits," or, "previously retarded learn lessons and get jobs"? Nowhere.

Quote :

" I know it sounds retarded to have your bullshit read back to you so I understand your shock."

What shock? I've never contested the fact that I'm arguing that charity would be become funded solely from private sources. I'm contesting your statements that I claimed that such changes would happen "overnight", or that "retarded" would learn lessons and get jobs. I clearly did not say either of those things. You put those words in my mouth, and then refuted them as though they were positions I actually held. (straw-man fallacy)

Saying that charity would be become funded solely from private sources in absolutely no way implies anything about how fast that change would occur. Of fucking course it wouldn't happen overnight!

Saying that poor people need to learn lessons so they can get jobs in absolutely no way implies anything about retarded people being able to do the same as well. I never said one thing about "the previously retarded".

This is what you said:

Quote :

"Maybe in fairyland, the previously retarded learn lessons and get jobs, charities expand overnight to cover everyones welfare benefits, and monkeys fly out of my butt. ... On earth, none of that shit happens."

Where the fuck did you get the idea of "overnight" or "retarded"? -- because you were the first to mention both. I mean seriously, guy -- I didn't say either of those things. Do you not understand what a straw-man is?
http://www.google.com/search?q=straw-man

Quote :

"You have problems dude."

:carlface: This is where I say, "No, you do."

[Edited on February 8, 2009 at 12:50 PM. Reason : ]

2/8/2009 12:48:09 PM

Hahahaha OK all this vaginal bleeding over "overnight" and "retarded". Whatever. Take those words out and you are still delusional.

2/8/2009 1:05:33 PM

Quote :

"THEN GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY."

favorite conservative redneck rebuttal to any argument that to which that are outsmarted.

"Well golly gee that liberal's argument eventhough i disagree sounded so much more intelligent than me. I better just respond with what i know best. IF U DON'T LIKE IT THAN YE CAN GET OUT!"

2/8/2009 1:17:48 PM

Quote :

"favorite conservative redneck rebuttal to any argument that to which that are outsmarted."

Perhaps, but I'm neither a redneck, nor was I outsmarted, nor was that a rebuttal....
...so, while it may be a "favorite conservative redneck rebuttal to any argument to which that are outsmarted", it's also an appropriate comment in other circumstances. I'm sure that you didn't mean to exercise stereotypes...

Quote :

"Whatever. Take those words out and you are still delusional"

Fine. I may disagree, but I have no problem with you holding that position. However, please be more careful in the future to not put words in people's mouths or use fallacious straw-men.

2/8/2009 1:43:23 PM

I am not my brother's keeper. If you are an able bodied adult you have no excuse not to be able to afford to house and feed yourself. Most poor people are poor due to poor decision making skills, laziness, or a fun blend of both.

It's amazing how many people would rather work 20 hours a week, take food stamps, subsidized housing, and welfare rather than stand on their own two feet. What ever happened to self sufficiency being a virtue? Hell, whatever happened to a little bit of pride? Shit how about just being an adult. Demanding that others care for you is a right that should be reserved for children and the mentally handicapped.

There is nothing worse for the poor than a handout.

2/8/2009 8:40:32 PM

I wonder how welfare even evolved from what it was intended for as temporary assistance to those faced with unexpected circumstances (sudden illness, long term disability, laid off during times of economic turmoil, loss of money making spouse) till that person got back on their feet; to what it has become now as a permanent support system for societies underlings who are unwilling to take care of themselves and would rather watch Ricki Lake on their couch all day than attempt to better their life situation.

Sure not every foodstamp welfare recipient falls under the "lazy unwanting to find a job" stereotype but all those that do only hurt those that legitimatly warrant assistance for unforseen circumstances.

[Edited on February 8, 2009 at 8:48 PM. Reason : l]

2/8/2009 8:46:21 PM

^ and ^^ Agreed.

Has anyone ever donated plasma on Hisborough St.? Back when I was in college during the summer semester I donated plasma one day thinking easy money. Turns out that I had to wait in line for almost 3-4 hours behind at least 20-30 other able bodied men and women that were of working age, and obviously didn't have health problems (donating plasma). These people that donated plasma did this crap for a living, most of them had scars on there arms as if they had been donating plasma twice a week for several years. Thing is, donating plasma takes all day long and this was during the middle of the week. These people had to be subsisting on some form of government handout cause they were obviously not working a normal day job. Able bodied people! It was a disgrace.

[Edited on February 8, 2009 at 9:05 PM. Reason : ]

2/8/2009 9:04:34 PM

Quote :

"It's amazing how many people would rather work 20 hours a week, take food stamps, subsidized housing, and welfare rather than stand on their own two feet. What ever happened to self sufficiency being a virtue? Hell, whatever happened to a little bit of pride? Shit how about just being an adult. Demanding that others care for you is a right that should be reserved for children and the mentally handicapped. "

How many people? I want to be amazed too.

2/8/2009 9:11:11 PM

That would be all of them who are able bodied.

2/8/2009 9:21:18 PM

Quote :

"What ever happened to self sufficiency being a virtue?"

It's a virtue few display. The people working forty a week for a corporation aren't more self-sufficient than the unwashed masses waiting for a handout. Almost everyone relies on support from other humans. Government or market, you're not standing only on your own two feet.

Quote :

"These people had to be subsisting on some form of government handout cause they were obviously not working a normal day job."

Eh, don't just to conclusions. I've donated plasma while employed and not receiving government assistance.

2/8/2009 9:33:46 PM

^ How many times did you donate while working at your job? Enough times to create scars from getting stuck with needles? Was it a full time job or part time?

2/8/2009 9:59:04 PM

Quote :

"The people working forty a week for a corporation aren't more self-sufficient than the unwashed masses waiting for a handout."

Are you really saying that there's no difference between working at a job for a paycheck and not really doing anything and still getting a paycheck?

True, some employees might not really be earning what they receive, but holding down a job and getting payed for it does not equate in even the remotest way to suckling from the metaphorical teat of society.

2/8/2009 9:59:11 PM

Quote :

"These people that donated plasma did this crap for a living, most of them had scars on there arms as if they had been donating plasma twice a week for several years."

Hey at least they are doing something that benefits society. I will give them that much credits even if their only earned
income is being a human chemical factory.

Quote :

"The people working forty a week for a corporation aren't more self-sufficient than the unwashed masses waiting for a handout. Almost everyone relies on support from other humans. "

40 hours is for slackers; right Hoffmaster?

You are kidding right?

Those working 40 hours a week innovating, producing, building, etc creating value, goods, and services are supposedly

not more self-sufficient than Billy Rae sitting on his front chair recliner complaining that illegal immigrants are taking his

job mowing grass; collecting welfare checks every month.

2/8/2009 10:00:12 PM

Yeah 40 hours is for wimps. Hopefully I will be putting in more than 40 hrs next week!

2/8/2009 10:02:12 PM

i might need some foodstamps after this week

2/8/2009 10:08:46 PM

Quote :

"How many times did you donate while working at your job?"

Only a few. And it was a part-time job. But I totally could have done it while working full-time. Takes just a couple hours if you go early in the morning.

Quote :

"Enough times to create scars from getting stuck with needles?"

That would take one time. When I first went into the plasma place, the noticed my scar from donating whole blood, which I hadn't done in years.

Quote :

"Are you really saying that there's no difference between working at a job for a paycheck and not really doing anything and still getting a paycheck?"

Not in terms of self-sufficiency. Either way, you rely on networks of humans and machines to survive.

Quote :

"i might need some foodstamps after this week"

One of my roommates was pushing foodstamps a little while back. He thinks we qualify. This thread makes me want to sign up.

2/8/2009 10:57:41 PM

Sometimes it's hard for me to find the time to stay pissed off at people on food stamps between my full time 45+ hours/week full time job and my 20-30 hour/week part time job.

To hell with welfare recipients. Bottom line is they are by and large lazy, shiftless, and don't deserve my respect. Again, based on my experience dealing with the general public for 10+ hours a day most people who are poor are so by choice.

Perhaps self sufficient was a poor choice of words. How about the concept of TANSTAAFL and paying your own way? Is that no longer a concept worth holding in high esteem?

[Edited on February 8, 2009 at 11:07 PM. Reason : asdfadsf]

2/8/2009 11:05:43 PM

Quote :

"Sometimes it's hard for me to find the time to stay pissed off at people on food stamps between my full time 45+ hours/week full time job and my 20-30 hour/week part time job."

I'm surprised you find the time to post here.

Quote :

"To hell with welfare recipients. Bottom line is they are by and large lazy, shiftless, and don't deserve my respect."

I have the utmost respect for folks unwilling to endure bosses.

2/8/2009 11:10:46 PM

Quote :

"Not in terms of self-sufficiency. Either way, you rely on networks of humans and machines to survive."

That's an absurdly loose definition of self-sufficiency... So broad as to be useless. In fact, by that definition, self-sufficiency is completely impossible. Especially when you consider that nature is more or less a huge network of various physical mechanics.

2/8/2009 11:16:02 PM

Quote :

""You said, "If someone loses their house because they bought a hummer, they are not rich, they are poor." Which is 100% wrong. If you owned your own house in the first place, and had the money to buy the hummer, YOU ARE RICH. Sure, after you lost your house because you spent your money on an expensive and unnecessary car, you're now poor, but I'm not talking about afterwords."

Quote :

"So I guess you don't actually understand what "rich" and "poor" mean."

Quote :

"Anyone else see what moron is saying here? I mean, what the fuck?"

Unless I understand him incorrectly, he's suggesting that the home owner who lost his house and hummer, due to the excessive debt burden caused by the purchase, was never actually rich. If the house was on loan from the bank, and the hummer was on loan from the bank, he never owned either; the bank did.

I could be way off.

[Edited on February 8, 2009 at 11:21 PM. Reason : ]

2/8/2009 11:21:01 PM

Quote :

"That's an absurdly loose definition of self-sufficiency... So broad as to be useless."

I don't consider the concept terribly useful.

Quote :

"In fact, by that definition, self-sufficiency is completely impossible."

Actually, no. A few humans survive without machines or comrades. It can be done temporarily.

2/8/2009 11:23:08 PM

Quote :

"I have the utmost respect for folks unwilling to endure bosses."

I do as well, assuming they don't endure them in order to become their own boss and provide for themselves in that manner. I have no respect for people who choose not to work and expect to be provided for simply because they exist.

2/9/2009 12:25:49 AM

Pupils DiL8t

Quote :

"Unless I understand him incorrectly, he's suggesting that the home owner who lost his house and hummer, due to the excessive debt burden caused by the purchase, was never actually rich. If the house was on loan from the bank, and the hummer was on loan from the bank, he never owned either; the bank did. I could be way off."

Right. I thought that, and was hoping he'd say as much. The problem is, the scenario was simply a hypothetical to demonstrate a completely different point. You see, he (moron) is just a troll, trying to upset people and start meaningless arguments. Why? I don't know. Maybe he's mentally ill. Maybe he's just a jerk.

It all started when the discussion was focused on consumer responsibility to make wise purchases. 1337b4k4 posted this:

Quote :

"The problem is, when well off guys waste their money on convenience and bitch about having no money, people look at them and tell them to stop being so wasteful. When poor people waste their money on convenience, people moan about the plight of the poor and how we need to raise taxes and welfare so they can enjoy convenience."

...to which I agreed.
The point here is: Welfare proponents tend to complain about unwise purchases made by poor people, but don't equally complain about unwise purchases made by rich people. The former instance of unwise purchasing is viewed simply as "wasteful", while the later is viewed as "the plight of the poor". (I'm not addressing this issue right now, I'm just clarifying.)

So I added:

Quote :

"Exactly. You'll never hear BridgetSPK complain about the plight of rich people who lost their house after they unnecessarily bought a hummer because of the "billion dollar advertising industry....continuously beamed at them from all directions". But as soon as some poor people spend their milk money on junk food, she's all "OMG IT'S SO UNFAIR!"

The comparison here, again, aside from the point, is between rich and poor people. It's a hypothetical. In other words, I'm defining the scenario. When I say "rich people", and there's more than one type of rich person, I'm obviously referring to the type that fits the scenario. As you pointed out, and as I have been perfectly aware of all along, some rich people are actually in debt, and have less money than most [poor] broke people. However, look at the point I'm making. I'm comparing rich to poor in terms of purchase wisdom. That has nothing to do with credit versus cash. The hypothetical rich people could be the type with no cash and all debt, or they could be sitting on tons of cash and buy everything up front. Rather than acknowledge or comment on the actual point I was making, that was in agreement with 1337b4k4's point, moron decided to take issue, for no good reason, with the concept of what "rich" and "poor" mean. Certainly, if I were referring to the type of rich person who isn't really rich -- the type where they're in debt, then the hypothetical that I set up for the purposes of making a point wouldn't have fit. It wouldn't be saying the same thing as 1337b4k4 said. When I quoted 1337b4k4, starting my response with "Exactly.", it was clearly obvious, from the beginning, that I was in agreement with him. So, it should be clear to anyone, that even though I didn't specify which type of rich person (debt vs. cash) to which I was referring, and by virtue of 1337b4k4's point that I was clearly agreeing with and adding to, that I was referring to the type of rich person with cash.

But, you see, it appears that moron never cared to take issue with the point I was making. Instead, he decided to troll. Trolling is very immature, and doesn't help anything. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that the mods of this site don't forbid it, at least in obvious cases occurring in otherwise serious threads. (outside of shitchat, of course). So, while you're correct to point out the distinction moron was likely using, it's important to note that he was never trying to be serious. He's a loser troll, and should generally be ignored. Thanks for responding, though. I was about to go crazy wondering why everyone was just sitting back and allowing the trolling to go on....


GoldenViper

Quote :

"Government or market, you're not standing only on your own two feet."

Quote :

"Not in terms of self-sufficiency. Either way, you rely on networks of humans and machines to survive"

HOLY FUCKING LOGICAL FALLACY BATMAN
Translation: "When someone says [some word or phrase], they mean [one particular definition], because I say they do.
Their point about [some word or phrase] isn't consistent with [one particular definition].
Therefore, they are wrong."
LO-FUCKING-L

Willy Nilly

Quote :

""self-sufficiency" ...really extends to "small-group sufficiency" -- Everyone doesn't need to be their own fully-isolated hermit. It's really about that line between being given something and taking something."

Seriously, GoldenViper, you do know what people are talking about when, in political discussions, they refer to "self-sufficiency", don't you? (Hint: It's not whatever definition you'd like, it's the one they meant.)

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 9:23 AM. Reason : ]

2/9/2009 9:21:56 AM

^hooksaw?

Quote :

"Exactly. You'll never hear BridgetSPK complain about the plight of rich people who lost their house after they unnecessarily bought a hummer because of the "billion dollar advertising industry....continuously beamed at them from all directions". But as soon as some poor people spend their milk money on junk food, she's all "OMG IT'S SO UNFAIR!""

I complain about advertising all the time and with respect to everyone.

aimorris said I refuse to "blame anybody who is poor, doing drugs, or in trouble with the law..."

Tthat's pretty much true, but I also don't really blame anybody for anything.

And I think I am slowly getting better about being consistent in this condition. I mean, I'm going to places that make me a little uncomfortable....I'm developing sympathy for white collar criminals and child abusers and shit.

And I'm not really ashamed of it.

2/9/2009 10:13:23 AM

Quote :

"hooksaw?"

Twice now, someone has asked that. (was it you the first time?)
He must be rather intelligent for people to think I'm him.

Quote :

"I complain about advertising all the time and with respect to everyone."

Yeah, free speech can be ugly, can't it? Thank goodness for free speech that combats it. (remember Joe Camel Chemo?)

Quote :

"I also don't really blame anybody for anything."

.........
(wtf? Are you trying to discredit your political views?)

Quote :

"I'm developing sympathy for white collar criminals and child abusers and shit."

Shouldn't that clue you in to the fact that you've been barking up the wrong philosophy tree?
I mean, shit.

2/9/2009 10:54:36 AM

hooksaw?

2/9/2009 11:14:21 AM

Bueller?




LOL, I'm not hooksaw.
But I'm not surprised that you're the type of person that believes something without evidence or proof...
(Stop posting off-topic. Go start a thread about it if you want....)
Or is this a strategy to avoid the topic?
\/

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 11:30 AM. Reason : \/]

2/9/2009 11:20:29 AM

Aww, dude, you promised you were going to leave.

You fucking promised.

2/9/2009 11:23:55 AM

^ now that you mention it, willy nilly does have a decidedly hooksaw flare to his posts.

2/9/2009 12:11:04 PM

It's obviously him.

He's insulting and abrasive to anybody who disagrees with him.

I think we can all be insulting and abrasive, but he was the only one who behaved that way all the time.

And if it's not him, it might as well be, and I'm gonna ignore him anyway.

2/9/2009 12:42:26 PM

Quote :

"I have no respect for people who choose not to work and expect to be provided for simply because they exist."

Why? There's plenty for all. This country is more than rich enough to afford food stamps.

Quote :

"Seriously, GoldenViper, you do know what people are talking about when, in political discussions, they refer to "self-sufficiency", don't you?"

I don't consider that definition accurate or useful. You can say and mean whatever you want, but don't expect others to automatically accept it. Don't use food stamps? Great, claim self-sufficiency all you want. I'll continue to call out such assertions.

Quote :

"And I'm not really ashamed of it."

Nor should you be. Sympathy comes with understanding. What purpose does blame serves?

2/9/2009 2:13:09 PM

^^ If he wants to start over fresh, I can appreciate that goal, and I don't see any reason not to pretend it's not him, yet.

Quote :

"The comparison here, again, aside from the point, is between rich and poor people. It's a hypothetical. In other words, I'm defining the scenario. When I say "rich people", and there's more than one type of rich person, I'm obviously referring to the type that fits the scenario. As you pointed out, and as I have been perfectly aware of all along, some rich people are actually in debt, and have less money than most [poor] broke people. However, look at the point I'm making. I'm comparing rich to poor in terms of purchase wisdom. That has nothing to do with credit versus cash. The hypothetical rich people could be the type with no cash and all debt, or they could be sitting on tons of cash and buy everything up front. Rather than acknowledge or comment on the actual point I was making, that was in agreement with 1337b4k4's point, moron decided to take issue, for no good reason, with the concept of what "rich" and "poor" mean. Certainly, if I were referring to the type of rich person who isn't really rich -- the type where they're in debt, then the hypothetical that I set up for the purposes of making a point wouldn't have fit. It wouldn't be saying the same thing as 1337b4k4 said. When I quoted 1337b4k4, starting my response with "Exactly.", it was clearly obvious, from the beginning, that I was in agreement with him. So, it should be clear to anyone, that even though I didn't specify which type of rich person (debt vs. cash) to which I was referring, and by virtue of 1337b4k4's point that I was clearly agreeing with and adding to, that I was referring to the type of rich person with cash. "

IOW, youre blaming me for YOUR inaccurate portrayal of your own point? I can accept that. It's funny how you're so obsessed with me though, i'm flattered.

And I didn't realize you were hooksaw at that point, so I was not trolling you in any way. But when you say that other first world countries don't have a concept of private property, what else am I suppose to do except think you're a knuckle dragger? However, I am merciful, and I will wipe from my memory you made such a brain-dead comment.

[Edited on February 9, 2009 at 4:25 PM. Reason : ]

2/9/2009 4:11:32 PM

Quote :

"Tthat's pretty much true, but I also don't really blame anybody for anything. And I think I am slowly getting better about being consistent in this condition. I mean, I'm going to places that make me a little uncomfortable....I'm developing sympathy for white collar criminals and child abusers and shit. And I'm not really ashamed of it."

Well, Bridget, it's official, you're insane. So you're pretty much okay with tossing aside the ideas of free will, personal responsibility, causality, and consequences? I guess that's... interesting.

Quote :

"Why? There's plenty for all. This country is more than rich enough to afford food stamps."

and GoldenViper is so far out there that I'm not even going to bother arguing with him. He and I hold such wildly disparate beliefs as to what one person owes another that we'll never reach common ground. Fortunately people with his same set of beliefs usually accomplish nothing due to lack of drive or motivation.

2/9/2009 7:38:27 PM

Quote :

"So you're pretty much okay with tossing aside the ideas of free will, personal responsibility, causality, and consequences?"

Hold on. You're lumping different concepts together. One can accept causality and consequences without believing in free will and personal responsiblity.

Quote :

"Fortunately people with his same set of beliefs usually accomplish nothing due to lack of drive or motivation."

Lately I've been putting my ideology into action on the street multiple days a week.

2/9/2009 7:49:44 PM

Well, good luck with that. Let me know when you discover the "seed" type matter transformation device that is necessary for your utopia to exist.

And you're right, you can believe in causality and consequences without believing in free will, but it's mighty silly because then you should just throw your hands up and resign yourself to whatever, after all you have no control or say over anything that happens so what's the point of even continuing to live?

2/9/2009 8:17:03 PM

Quote :

"I don't consider that definition accurate or useful. You can say and mean whatever you want, but don't expect others to automatically accept it. Don't use food stamps? Great, claim self-sufficiency all you want. I'll continue to call out such assertions. "

You may not consider the definition accurate and useful, but you're seriously the only person I've ever met who, when talking about people, society and welfare, would use a definition of self-sufficiency that would make even the Amish look like leeches on the societal teat. So like you said:

Quote :

" You can say and mean whatever you want, but don't expect others to automatically accept it."

2/9/2009 8:24:22 PM