Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

I am tired of this trendy smashing of the weak

Page 4 of 9 [ 130 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

10 Jan 2014, 8:57 pm

Raptor wrote:
Quote:
I am tired of this trendy smashing of the weak
.

Ever at least tried NOT being weak?


What does this question have to do with the thread? :?


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

10 Jan 2014, 9:05 pm

beneficii wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Quote:
I am tired of this trendy smashing of the weak
.

Ever at least tried NOT being weak?


What does this question have to do with the thread? :?


It has everything to do with it.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

10 Jan 2014, 9:27 pm

Raptor wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Quote:
I am tired of this trendy smashing of the weak
.

Ever at least tried NOT being weak?


What does this question have to do with the thread? :?


It has everything to do with it.


Actually, it's an example of deflection. He's discussing a general trend in society, and you go ask him a question asking if he's been weak.

More to that point, however, for him to have the courage to share his views, that's not weakness. That's strength and takes courage to do.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


RandyG
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 173
Location: Ohio, USA

10 Jan 2014, 9:55 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
That IS THE idea of Welfare Rights: To become independent of private charity offers to keep our personal integrity, regardless of disability.


I don't understand this. Why do you believe there is more "integrity" in taking monies which you know were taken at gunpoint from those who produced them? Nobody with any self-esteem likes to ask for help, but if I needed assistance, I'd be much more comfortable taking it from the willing rather than accepting what is essentially stolen goods.

That said, government charity drives out private charity, so I don't resent anyone who needs help and gets it via the government.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

10 Jan 2014, 9:58 pm

Society functions almost as an organic unit. The weaker parts have to be compensated for, but they can only do so without harming the whole. With the economic situation the way it is, there is more of a burden on financial assistance, and less resources to use. It's bad times. That said, we can't let people be dying on the street.
The thing is there are a lot of people on disability and welfare for all kinds of reasons and there are not a lot of jobs available for these people because the world is not friendly to the disabled.
But I think we should consider ourselves lucky that society provides such assistance. There may come a time when it's no longer available at all.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

11 Jan 2014, 12:17 am

adb wrote:
I have negative feelings toward people who feel that being disadvantaged means they should be entitled to free services. It's a feeling of resentment that what I work to produce is forcefully taken from me in order to provide free services to someone else. I have no issue whatsoever with providing voluntary assistance to other people, but it's infuriating when those same people feel that they are entitled to plunder the fruits of my labor. I have compassion and I have empathy, but they are feelings that convert rapidly to resentment in the face of contempt.

This resentment is not "superiority" or bigotry.


The masses are undeserving,
Of good accomodation,
Everything is made by machines,
They must be rewarded for that,
There is only one kind of house,
Good enough for the average prole,
That's the house that is the future,
In this belt-tightening world,
Flophouse, flophouse, everybody live in a flophouse!



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

11 Jan 2014, 12:21 am

Ann2011 wrote:
Society functions almost as an organic unit. The weaker parts have to be compensated for, but they can only do so without harming the whole. With the economic situation the way it is, there is more of a burden on financial assistance, and less resources to use. It's bad times. That said, we can't let people be dying on the street.
The thing is there are a lot of people on disability and welfare for all kinds of reasons and there are not a lot of jobs available for these people because the world is not friendly to the disabled.
But I think we should consider ourselves lucky that society provides such assistance. There may come a time when it's no longer available at all.


Austerity kills the economy and increases the debt to GDP ratio, to this idea that we must do these terrible things is ludicrous. It is based on this torture-worshipping mania that states that anything that isn't horribly painful and punitive cannot possibly work. Conveniently, those proposing the pain are not those to be subject to it.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

11 Jan 2014, 12:24 am

Welfare reform steals from honest workers by smashing their bargaining power, by creating a pool of the desperate forced to sell themselves into SLAVERY. Idiot culture of envy resentful workers who support welfare reform are destroying themselves... How many full time posts in the UK are now being filled with slaves posted by by the Department of Works and Pensions? More people are forced to compete with slave workers. Brilliant! Super! You might as well shoot yourselves in the head.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

11 Jan 2014, 1:46 am

beneficii wrote:
Taxes are a part of modern society. Deal with it.


Libertarianism is about a lot more than taxes, which you would know if you bothered to learn before you spoke. Hence, my previous comment.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

11 Jan 2014, 2:17 am

Raptor wrote:
Quote:
I am tired of this trendy smashing of the weak
.

Ever at least tried NOT being weak?


Uh, where the f*ck does the original poster say they are "weak"? Also, from the OP

Quote:
A couple of years ago, I read in the newspapers that physically ill in wheelchairs got yelled at, accussed of being THE reason for the Economic Crisis.


I guess it's perfectly reasonable to expect folks in wheelchairs to, through the POWER OF POSITIVE THINKING, THE SECRET, or maybe JESUS, to gain the inner strength to regain function of their legs. :roll:


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,310

11 Jan 2014, 3:23 am

Raptor wrote:
Quote:
I am tired of this trendy smashing of the weak
.

Ever at least tried NOT being weak?


I have my weaknesses and my strengths.

It's none of your business, really.



Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 11 Jan 2014, 4:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,310

11 Jan 2014, 3:42 am

RandyG wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
That IS THE idea of Welfare Rights: To become independent of private charity offers to keep our personal integrity, regardless of disability.


I don't understand this. Why do you believe there is more "integrity" in taking monies which you know were taken at gunpoint from those who produced them? Nobody with any self-esteem likes to ask for help, but if I needed assistance, I'd be much more comfortable taking it from the willing rather than accepting what is essentially stolen goods.

That said, government charity drives out private charity, so I don't resent anyone who needs help and gets it via the government.


Let me turn it the other way:

I don't understand this. Why do you believe it is better for the society in taking monies for the police at gunpoint from those who produced them?
...

The answer is obvious: We all benefit from the protection of the police, at some point or the other.
While not everybody has experienced being robbed and had to call the police, not everyone has experienced weaknesses to the degree that they cannot work.

But both the police AND the welfare system, is there to provide a safetynet.

If you want to argue in favor of abolishing welfare, you should argue in favor of abolishing or privatizing the police too.
They're both neccessary part of individual liberty. You are forced to pay for the police though, just as you are forced to pay for welfare, regardless of wether or not you were
robbed* or got sick.

*robbed: Defined as the ILLEGAL deprivation of property.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

11 Jan 2014, 4:12 am

xenon13 wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
Society functions almost as an organic unit. The weaker parts have to be compensated for, but they can only do so without harming the whole. With the economic situation the way it is, there is more of a burden on financial assistance, and less resources to use. It's bad times. That said, we can't let people be dying on the street.
The thing is there are a lot of people on disability and welfare for all kinds of reasons and there are not a lot of jobs available for these people because the world is not friendly to the disabled.
But I think we should consider ourselves lucky that society provides such assistance. There may come a time when it's no longer available at all.


Austerity kills the economy and increases the debt to GDP ratio, to this idea that we must do these terrible things is ludicrous. It is based on this torture-worshipping mania that states that anything that isn't horribly painful and punitive cannot possibly work. Conveniently, those proposing the pain are not those to be subject to it.


Not sure what you're getting at with the "torture-worshiping" idea. And I don't think there's anything punitive about what I said. It's not a matter of sadism, just practicality. The community can only carry so much burden and people don't have an entitlement to aid.



thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,310

11 Jan 2014, 4:23 am

Ann2011 wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
Society functions almost as an organic unit. The weaker parts have to be compensated for, but they can only do so without harming the whole. With the economic situation the way it is, there is more of a burden on financial assistance, and less resources to use. It's bad times. That said, we can't let people be dying on the street.
The thing is there are a lot of people on disability and welfare for all kinds of reasons and there are not a lot of jobs available for these people because the world is not friendly to the disabled.
But I think we should consider ourselves lucky that society provides such assistance. There may come a time when it's no longer available at all.


Austerity kills the economy and increases the debt to GDP ratio, to this idea that we must do these terrible things is ludicrous. It is based on this torture-worshipping mania that states that anything that isn't horribly painful and punitive cannot possibly work. Conveniently, those proposing the pain are not those to be subject to it.


Not sure what you're getting at with the "torture-worshiping" idea. And I don't think there's anything punitive about what I said. It's not a matter of sadism, just practicality. The community can only carry so much burden and people don't have an entitlement to aid.


I disagree, because it is a matter of prioritizing the resources.

When governments "have" to cut welfare, it is not a matter of neccessity per see. It is because they feel they cannot tax the the tax payers more, or even want to cut down on taxes,
again it comes down to the ordinary working people's RESENTMENT to paying taxes for the needy, as the posters in this thread clearly proves.

We must ask ourselves the question: Do we *really* want the society to help the needy? If no, how can we get rid of them then?



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

11 Jan 2014, 4:35 am

thinkinginpictures wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
Society functions almost as an organic unit. The weaker parts have to be compensated for, but they can only do so without harming the whole. With the economic situation the way it is, there is more of a burden on financial assistance, and less resources to use. It's bad times. That said, we can't let people be dying on the street.
The thing is there are a lot of people on disability and welfare for all kinds of reasons and there are not a lot of jobs available for these people because the world is not friendly to the disabled.
But I think we should consider ourselves lucky that society provides such assistance. There may come a time when it's no longer available at all.


Austerity kills the economy and increases the debt to GDP ratio, to this idea that we must do these terrible things is ludicrous. It is based on this torture-worshipping mania that states that anything that isn't horribly painful and punitive cannot possibly work. Conveniently, those proposing the pain are not those to be subject to it.


Not sure what you're getting at with the "torture-worshiping" idea. And I don't think there's anything punitive about what I said. It's not a matter of sadism, just practicality. The community can only carry so much burden and people don't have an entitlement to aid.


I disagree, because it is a matter of prioritizing the resources.

When governments "have" to cut welfare, it is not a matter of neccessity per see. It is because they feel they cannot tax the the tax payers more, or even want to cut down on taxes,
again it comes down to the ordinary working people's RESENTMENT to paying taxes for the needy, as the posters in this thread clearly proves.

We must ask ourselves the question: Do we *really* want the society to help the needy? If no, how can we get rid of them then?


Or learn to live with visible poverty and suffering (it's been done before.)

People resent paying money they work for to those unable to provide for themselves because it's hard to make ends meet even when you're working.

I'm not against social assistance (and have been helped by it myself,) But if possible I think it's to a person's advantage to find something they can do to earn a living or contribute in some way.

Society I think will become less willing to help others in the future simply because the number of recipients will collapse the reserve.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

11 Jan 2014, 4:55 am

Ann2011 wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
Society functions almost as an organic unit. The weaker parts have to be compensated for, but they can only do so without harming the whole. With the economic situation the way it is, there is more of a burden on financial assistance, and less resources to use. It's bad times. That said, we can't let people be dying on the street.
The thing is there are a lot of people on disability and welfare for all kinds of reasons and there are not a lot of jobs available for these people because the world is not friendly to the disabled.
But I think we should consider ourselves lucky that society provides such assistance. There may come a time when it's no longer available at all.


Austerity kills the economy and increases the debt to GDP ratio, to this idea that we must do these terrible things is ludicrous. It is based on this torture-worshipping mania that states that anything that isn't horribly painful and punitive cannot possibly work. Conveniently, those proposing the pain are not those to be subject to it.


Not sure what you're getting at with the "torture-worshiping" idea. And I don't think there's anything punitive about what I said. It's not a matter of sadism, just practicality. The community can only carry so much burden and people don't have an entitlement to aid.


I disagree, because it is a matter of prioritizing the resources.

When governments "have" to cut welfare, it is not a matter of neccessity per see. It is because they feel they cannot tax the the tax payers more, or even want to cut down on taxes,
again it comes down to the ordinary working people's RESENTMENT to paying taxes for the needy, as the posters in this thread clearly proves.

We must ask ourselves the question: Do we *really* want the society to help the needy? If no, how can we get rid of them then?


Or learn to live with visible poverty and suffering (it's been done before.)

People resent paying money they work for to those unable to provide for themselves because it's hard to make ends meet even when you're working.

I'm not against social assistance (and have been helped by it myself,) But if possible I think it's to a person's advantage to find something they can do to earn a living or contribute in some way.

Society I think will become less willing to help others in the future simply because the number of recipients will collapse the reserve.


All I have to say is that, in America at least, if GDP continues to grow and the gap between rich and poor continues to go (meaning the rich are getting much richer), then we can afford to raise taxes on them to help the needy. Also, consider our absolutely ginormous military budget.

CORRECTION: *Between the super-rich and everybody else.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin