Why should a drug addict's babies die? ("Welfare"

Post Reply New Topic

It provides incentive to stop if they care about their family more than themselves.

Aren't we saying the same thing here?

Did we both mention taxes, Hamilton, and the word "generation"? Yes.

The messages behind our statements were not identical. You provided a very limited perspective and then proceeded to place the entire taxation issue, addressed as "shackles" in the quoted comment and insinuated as "slavery" in a previous comment, on future generations with a presumption that such a thing needed to be eradicated. I explained very briefly a touch more of what these men did, specifically Hamilton's part and specifically about taxation.

And that's not consistent with reality, anyway. You CAN get help with your children so that they don't have to suffer for YOUR mistakes. As far as I'm aware, honestly, anybody can do that--turn themselves in to CPS and say, "I can no longer provide for my child, please place him in a home" and that person quite possibly will never see that child again. If you have a violent child who might even pose a danger to your own personal safety and that of others in your family, you can give up all your rights and responsibilities to that child and make him someone else's problem. The corollary to that, unfortunately, is that CPS may say, "Oh, well, all children in that family are in danger and have to be removed from the home..." But my point still holds that it is not necessary that a child under those conditions HAS to die because of a parent's failure to secure government benefits due an inability to get a drug test. There are times in western justice that we should make examples out of people. Saying that the death of children is that example to teach someone a lesson is just ignorance of how things actually work. There are other options that serve to take the children out of the equation without them staying with the parent and possibly dying.

The foster care system is a much better way to kill children.

I was referring to the sentences in bold font.

discussing this issue is pointless untill some agreement can be had towards the human experience,
im glad i dont have to worry about stuff like that. (mentioned in OP)

there are too many almost purely subjective points.

I was referring to the actual discussion and comparing the statements being made by both of us for their obvious differences and limited similarities, which addressed your question of whether or not we had been saying the same thing. Do you have a point somewhere in this or do you just enjoy being wildly off-topic? I'd like to know the direction.

Okay. THIS is going somewhere. Can you go more indepth, imnotaparakeet, about how you feel this will be more beneficial for the overall problem (especially if you feel the problem is that tax money is going for social services, that tax money is going for people with drug problems, and/or that people have drug problems that endanger caring for their own households without assistance)? Can you go forward to justify the original statements made in the OP?

THE STATEMENTS IN BOLD ARE FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME!! ! YOU asked ME if I could justify his position! His position was his to explain, not mine.

Hamilton's generation freed us from our obligation to a monarch through the creation of a representative government. However, they were unable to conceive a government that could function without obligating its citizens to pay taxes. Involuntary obligations are fundamentally the same as slavery.

Did I spell it out clearly enough for you this time?

Let's review: (1) You made a faulty statement. (2) I brought up Alexander Hamilton, which directly conflicted your statement and, instead of taking an insulting approach, I asked you to justify this factual information, implying in contrast to your tenuous opinion (3) Instead of bringing up Jefferson, you blew it off because you don't know what you're talking about (4) I responded with a greater explanation because I see a need to teach you, at least about Hamilton, so that you are able to speak about this topic (5) You didn't understand and thought two sentences said the same thing without comprehending my sentence or reading the statement in full (6) I corrected you (7) You didn't seem to understand that putting words in bold doesn't make the other words disappear. (8) I corrected you (9) You started using caps and got to the bottom line, which is inaccurately and ignorantly equating taxes to slavery.

Finally, now we're at (10) After detailing out this crap, I tell you that I've grown tired of this and recommend that you actually study early American history if you're going to argue it with someone who's studied it as an intense special interest for the past 20 years. If you're going to talk to me, you bring more than bumperstickers. Understand?

There's too many questions and requests in there and which statements in the OP are you looking to justify?

As far as I know, drug habits cost people a lot of money - the addictive substances of them causing demand. By denying welfare to those who are both seeking taxpayer aid and who are trying to feed a drug addiction, it thereby increases the demand for food instead of for expensive drugs. Without the taxpayer based welfare to provide additional resources, they have to work within a narrower budget. Thus placing their demand for drugs in opposition to their demand for food. Hopefully, their demand for food, and any love that they may have for their families, may then outweigh their demand for being a kite while they starve their own family. If they do actually place more demand upon their family's needs than for their own wants, then additionally the decreased supply of drugs may assist them in weaning them off of their habit.

1. You asked a stupid question. It does not follow that drug addicts babies are only kept alive by welfare.

2. You asked me if I could justify Hamilton's position, which I cannot; I contend that his position is unjust.

3. There was no need to mention Jefferson, in order to answer the question that you asked.

4. I know more than enough about Hamilton. And if I felt the need for a refresher, you would be the last source that I would turn to for information.

5. I fully comprehended your statement. I was explaining why he would have considered taxation essential. I was not implying that by putting words in bold made the rest of my statement go away. I emboldened them to identify that they were the specific sentences that I my question was referring to.

6. Why are you absolutely unwilling to consider that there may be another way other than taxation?

7. I did not say that taxation is slavery, I said that involuntary obligations are fundamentally the same as slavery. Can you refute that statement without resorting to childish insults?

There was two. But you went ahead and answered so cool...



That is not how drug detoxification and rehabilitation works. One is not merely weaned off the drug with the problem solved. Even people addicted to cigarettes have a tremendous difficulty quitting smoking by weaning off the drug. It is true that a drug user is a burden on society. It's also true that a drug user receiving public assistance is burden on society. It can also be considered true that a drug user receiving detoxing and rehabilitating would be a burden on society. However, if the burden can be carried to rehabilitate a member a drug user into becoming a productive member of society, meanwhile helping to care properly for any dependents in the limited means by which public assistance offers, would this not be in the greater interests of society? I don't pose this to attempt to change your mind. I pose this to provoke more information from you on how far this opinion can be logically explained. You're doing well and I appreciate you helping me out here with a solid dialogue.

there are millions of functioning drug users, the issue here to me is about the people that are heavily addicted and cannot do anything for themselves, if you get to that point the only thing that really works is an enviroment dedicated to your betterment.

punishing people financially will only serve to bring more issues.

"Cold turkey" CAN work. If you suddenly take away a heavy addict's drugs, they will go through "instant detox". It's why there are drunk tanks in jails. Of course, the addict may never be the same again, but the damage is from the drugs, not from the detox. It is unlikely that heavy drug users will become productive members of society ever again. We're not talking about booze and tobacco, but heavy stuff like meth. Meth literally "fries" holes in people's brains. If somebody gets to the point that they have holes in their brain, the best thing to do is just take away the drugs, and lock them up. They may die. In some cases, that would be merciful.

The problem is that the drug addict should NOT be subsidized by government, nor should their kids, unless some way is found to care for them. (I say that the current foster care system is far inferior to the old orphanages.) Govt money should not go towards feeding the Mexican cartels. As for the kids, as I said we need a better way to care for them. As it is, only the worst people on earth want to be foster parents. There are numerous cases of foster parents neglecting, even enslaving, their kids because they want the money yet don't want to support the kids. We need orphanages. "Compassionate" liberals shut down the orphanages to be compassionate, but the replacement was far worse. Same thing with institutions for the mentally ill-there were abuses, but they fulfilled a need, one that group homes, filthy and overcrowded as they are, cannot.

Last edited by pezar on 09 Jun 2011, 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

I don't think it is quite that simple in all cases.