|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
 Posted - 05/11/2011 : 04:33:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
| What a flippant remark. That sort of talk is exactly what prevents anti-abortion and pro-choice people from working together. |
Agreed. I will dial back my obnoxious knob. My choice of words was intentionally provocative and I should not have said that. I will rephrase it. I think that the laws should be set up so that it is not so difficult for a woman to make the choice.
I can say "good for them" because from what you have described, the alternative is them having less funds to maintain their family. How the hell would that be good for them or their kids? And the only complaint you have is that some teeny tiny portion of the 2% of your tax dollars that actually goes to families and children welfare goes to them while they are technically breaking rules. As for how the welfare system was or should be designed, the reality is that people will have as many kids as they want. It is a fact that people with less means and security tend to have more children, so it stands to reason that if you want people to have less kids then design a system that helps the poorest people maintain a stable livelihood. All you are doing is throwing out personal judgement and moral platitudes. What good does that do? Thank goodness you aren't a policy maker!
|
Another alternative is to educate them. Yes I am throwing out personal judgement. I can not buy into the thought that just because people exist that they deserve for everyone else to care for them.
Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit. I am not questioning that you have worked hard and made smart financial choices. But to give total credit to your own personal merit is absurd. You obviously benefited from working within a system. You happened to live in an economic system that you are apparently good at navigating. You shouldn't take that for granted, lots of smart, good people have really shitty financial or business sense, and is that any reason to judge them when they suffer for it? What's more, your mental health and ability is not only dependent on your physiological condition, but on your environmental circumstances. One of my friends whose been unemployed on and off for over two years has a diagnosed mental disease, but since he doesn't qualify for any aid, he's gone untreated all this time, and that DEFINITELY hurts his changes of finding permanent employment. Bottom line, the people in your life and a certain amount of luck always plays a role in how successful any individual ends up.
|
Yeah, and I owe it to the innovators of the industry that I work and to all the other people who came before me and so on and so forth and because of this I should not give credit to myself. Bullshit! As far as judging those who make bad choices....me judging them obviously doesn't accomplish anythng but they SHOULD learn from their mistakes. I have made many mistakes. Guess what? I learned from them and became stronger because of it.
Do you read my posts? What you earn is determined by an arbitrary social construct. Is it fair that a CEO earns millions while a day care center caretaker earns $10/hr? Yes, no, maybe, all depends on what arbitrary social construct you personal prioritize. But any way about it, it is arbitrary.
|
This is where I really start losing you. Yes it is fair. I make a fair living based on my industry.
(running out of time, I shall finish later) |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
 |
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 05:56:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Do you read my posts? What you earn is determined by an arbitrary social construct. Is it fair that a CEO earns millions while a day care center caretaker earns $10/hr? Yes, no, maybe, all depends on what arbitrary social construct you personal prioritize. But any way about it, it is arbitrary.
|
Back to this one.
It seems that because the detrmination of salary is arbitrary that you determine that salary is essentially meaningless. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not buying into that either.
To use a personal example my wife went to college, earned a degree and went into a field that she was passionate about. I on the other hand have no mare than a high school education. I chose what I determined to have the highest earning potential based on my limited education. I now make considerably more than her. Is it fair? Absolutely.
| Yes, and that is the problem. As far as I can tell, you are an ideologue. You care more about ideas that real life consequences. Families break up over money problems. Money stress is a leading cause of divorce and stress in this country. But to you, the survival of a marriage even with children involved, and the quality of life for a family is less important that your arbitrary principles. At least religious people argue that their principles are ordained by God. As a secularist, you must know your principles are arbitrary, and yet you dismiss practical concerns and real life consequences. That is totally bizarre to me. |
I care about giving people an opportunity to learn and grow. A great way to learn and grow is through dealing with hardship. Do you think that if this family used in my example would just wither away if they had their benefits reduced or eliminated? You do not give them enough credit. If they are smart enough to game the system then they are smart enough to find more personally responsible ways of earning income.
Are you claiming that right and wrong are objective? If so, please back up that claim. Please show me how your principles in this matter are THE right ones. And if you don't believe in universal, objective principles, then give some REASONS why your principles are superior to mine. Because I've already explained why I think mine are superior (the family is better off gaming the system, while the supposed "harm" they do to taxpayers is so small per capita that it is negligible.)
|
You are rendering my principles meaningless. I do not think that you would accept any arguments. Exactly how does one show that their principles are the correct ones?
I think mine are superior because they give people the opportunity to learn and grow. Yours just encourage people to leach off the system.
| Look, social security and Medicare are forms of welfare. They are explicitly designed to provide a better lifestyle for elderly people who have retired from the work force. Most of those people can still work. But we as a society have decided that after a certain age people have paid enough dues and deserve to really retire, even if they haven't earned the means to do it without government aid. So if you support social security and Medicare, then you, too, support turning government benefits into a lifestyle. |
I am not arguing against either of these programs. You and I seem to be on the same page with these two in particular. They are a different story. Every working person pays into them and also collects them. I see them more as insurance.
marfknox,
You are a tough and interesting adversary. I have probably learned more from you in the past couple of days about the liberal mindset than I ever have. I say that as a good thing.
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 06:31:43 [Permalink]
|
| ...because of this I should not give credit to myself. Bullshit! |
Again, please read my posts carefully. I did give you credit. I said you don't get exclusive credit because your environment and luck play some role.
| This is where I really start losing you. Yes it is fair. I make a fair living based on my industry. |
Fair based on your industry, so it is relative. The point I was making by mentioning the extreme disparity between a CEO earning millions and a day care center caretaker making $20K/year (barely a living wage for a single person living in a tiny apartment in Philly) is that what different industries earn isn't fair by any objective standards. In the economy we've adopted in the states, what different industries make is mostly determined by the market, which values work more if it makes more money, not by how much it helps or hurts the overall society. And these market forces certainly doesn't take into account a worker's personal needs or overall value to community. Despite laws against it, we know that ageism, sexism, and racism play a role in how people get hired, how much they earn, and how quickly they can make gains in various industries. Bottom line - if we look at the big picture, our economic landscape is not very fair. HOWEVER, we accept these discrepancies for the most part, we embrace what is relatively fair within this generall unfair system, and we do so because the alternative is constant revolt and rebellion against it (which doesn't give one much time to enjoy one's life) and because most of us can at least make a decent living. The day care center caretaker knows that it isn't fair that CEO's earn millions, but if that same caretaker have a stable lifestyle, they don't care enough about the disparity to do anything about it. Plus, studies have shown that so long as someone's basic needs are covered, happiness does not actually increase with income and wealth. The point where this social acceptance of our given stations in life breaks down is when someone does not enjoy financial stability. If you have to worry about where your next meals are coming from, if you live in fear of health problems because they will financially ruin you, if you worry about getting evicted or have to live in homeless shelters or on the street, your baseline of happiness IS shattered. And then you see all these people who live these great lives because they were luckier, started out in wealthier conditions, were healthier, or smarter, and big surprise if you stop giving a flying fuck about mainstream concepts of ethics and integrity, and all that crap. Obviously the status quo way of doing things hasn't panned out for you, so why should you adhere to it? Because some middle class asshole is telling you to get your act together?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 06:43:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
| Comparable to what? Other two-parent, seven-kid families? |
I thought you asked if it was comparable to my house.
| And how do you defend that acreage? Have you hired some thugs to patrol it while you're working or sleeping, or are you slurping at the public trough of county services like police, firemen and title-deed clerks? |
So far I have never been in a situation where I've had to defend my property. I have the best security system money can buy. A 100 lb grumbly dog! Actually my little cute dog is probably more dangerous but nobody knows that. If the mongrels don't deter criminals then I have guns and I know how to use them.
One thing I'm not going to do is begrudge a child their parents. If raising seven kids is expensive, and they're getting public assistance to do so, then I'm all for it. Because the alternative is seven kids who are starving or going without shoes. And it's not the fault of the children that their parents are assholes who figured out how to game the system. So long as the benefits are being used to keep the kids and parents fed, healthy and clothed, that'd fine by me (if the parents are gaming the system in order to live extravagant lifestyles at the expense of their kids, that's a very different animal).
|
Agreed that the welfare of the children is most important. It still pisses me off though.
If you don't think it's fair, then petition your legislators to regulate child-bearing. Get them to mandate parenting licenses. Arguably, parenting is much, much more risky (especially for the child) than driving, and we force people to take a test for the latter. Why should parenting be considered a right in the first place?
|
I realize that you are most likely being facetious. You know, that IS actually what is in my heart but my brain tells me to think otherwise. It's a constant battle between my heart and my mind.
But if you're concerned with fairness, then you should turn in family #1 with an anonymous phone-call or letter. Nothing's better than visits from government officials to make one try to get one's shit together. And if the parents wind up imprisoned for cheating, and the kids in a group home waiting to be split up among seven different foster families, well that just serves 'em right, right?
|
I'm not about to do that. Again then battle between heart and mind.
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 07:17:07 [Permalink]
|
| To use a personal example my wife went to college, earned a degree and went into a field that she was passionate about. I on the other hand have no mare than a high school education. I chose what I determined to have the highest earning potential based on my limited education. I now make considerably more than her. Is it fair? Absolutely. |
It is only fair if you look at it from one perspective, and it is not fair if you look at it from another. My point is that the way you judge whether it is fair or not is subjective, not objective.
But fairness isn't really all that relevant if you and your wife manage to get all of your basic needs met: food, shelter, adequate health care, access to education, and a reasonable sense of security that these basics won't suddenly and unexpectedly disappear. If you both have all that, then who makes more money probably doesn't really matter to you. Your needs are met, so it is all good.
I care about giving people an opportunity to learn and grow. A great way to learn and grow is through dealing with hardship. Do you think that if this family used in my example would just wither away if they had their benefits reduced or eliminated? You do not give them enough credit. If they are smart enough to game the system then they are smart enough to find more personally responsible ways of earning income.
...
I think mine are superior because they give people the opportunity to learn and grow. Yours just encourage people to leach off the system. |
Regardless of how this particular family would respond, FACTS show that most people do NOT learn and grow through dealing with that sort of hardship. FACTS show that financial hardship increases divorces, spousal abuse, child abuse, obesity and other health problems, drug use and abuse, crime, mental illness, and of course all of those things just end up being more hardship and further decreases one's chance of digging out of the hole of poverty. These are just the facts. Doesn't matter that a minority of extraordinary individuals overcome the challenges. The majority don't, and that's why we have generations of poverty. If hardship caused most people to learn and grow, then we'd see most of the children of rich and middle class and the children of the poor switch places every generation.
Of course your principles are meaningful. But I reject them because I don't see how they are useful in practical application. Going back to the anti-abortion people, they usually oppose groups like Planned Parenthood because of their principles. They can't deal with the idea of giving money to a group that provides abortion services, even if the majority of its services and resources (97%) ultimately prevent abortions. These anti-abortion activists care more about sticking to their subjective principles than they care about actually reducing the number of abortions.
You seem to be convinced that this couple would be stronger if they didn't game the system. But what if you knew that losing their current benefits would lead to them abusing their kids, taking their stress out on each other, and then breaking up? What if you knew it would lead to health problems for the children induced by stress? Would you then prefer that they just keep gaming the system? (I mean, obviously it is better if we just had better services so they wouldn't be tempted to game the system, but assuming things remain as they are now...) Because regardless of what happens to this family, most families with financial hardship do end up worse off, not getting stronger because of it.
| I am not arguing against either of these programs. You and I seem to be on the same page with these two in particular. They are a different story. Every working person pays into them and also collects them. I see them more as insurance. |
Social security and Medicare are forms of welfare. Both of those program redistribute money based not primarily on how much they paid into the system. Also, it doesn't really work like insurance. Insurance is something purchased in the hopes that you will never need it. Social security and Medicare are programs that people look forward to taking advantage of in their old age. In the case of most of the people who can still work, it literally is government programs paying for enhanced lifestyles. Personally I'm all for that, particularly because it provides a way for working class people (like that Day Care Center caretaker) to get some kind of retirement or at least have to work and struggle less in their old age (few people live on social security alone.) It levels the field of overall unfairness between class just a little bit. But, then, I'm a socialist.
| You are a tough and interesting adversary. I have probably learned more from you in the past couple of days about the liberal mindset than I ever have. I say that as a good thing. |
Thanks. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/11/2011 07:17:44 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 07:26:24 [Permalink]
|
| Ebone, I'm suddenly confused by one of your arguments: You have insisted that this family will learn and grow and presumably be better people if they didn't game the system. But then you say you have contempt for them. If you believe that they are hurting themselves doing what they are doing, then why don't you feel sorry for them? Contempt is something people generally feel for those who do harm. You have made it clear that you don't feel hurt by the tiny amount they cost taxpayers, but rather, you are upset because it violates your principles. It just doesn't make sense. Why would you have contempt for people you think are lesser than you? Why do they piss you off? It seems the same as having contempt for a fundamentalist Christian family not because they are doing any harm to anyone, but rather because they live by different values than you. I think your head needs to shake some sense into your heart. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 08:24:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Ebone, I'm suddenly confused by one of your arguments: You have insisted that this family will learn and grow and presumably be better people if they didn't game the system. But then you say you have contempt for them. If you believe that they are hurting themselves doing what they are doing, then why don't you feel sorry for them? Contempt is something people generally feel for those who do harm. You have made it clear that you don't feel hurt by the tiny amount they cost taxpayers, but rather, you are upset because it violates your principles. It just doesn't make sense. Why would you have contempt for people you think are lesser than you? Why do they piss you off? It seems the same as having contempt for a fundamentalist Christian family not because they are doing any harm to anyone, but rather because they live by different values than you. I think your head needs to shake some sense into your heart.
|
You are starting to see how my particular style of argument has the ability to change my attitude. Rather than feeling contempt like I did earlier in this conversation I have now started exploring other options that are more reasonable than just expressing anger. You and I will most likely never see things 100% the same but this discussion has certainly given me food for thought. I hope the same is true for you.
I might be a bit different than most people who you are used to having these arguments with. I am not here to simply defend a rigid argument. It takes starting out with an argument
and following it to it's logical conclusion for me to to see areas for improvement.
I hope what I just wrote makes sense to you. Most people just don't understand.
I would like to thank you for engaging me in this conversation and I hope that there are no hard feelings. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 11:45:21 [Permalink]
|
Ebone | I hope what I just wrote makes sense to you. Most people just don't understand. |
I understand the feelings.
| I would like to thank you for engaging me in this conversation and I hope that there are no hard feelings |
Of course not. :-) Thank you, too. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 14:56:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Originally posted by Dave W.
| Comparable to what? Other two-parent, seven-kid families? |
I thought you asked if it was comparable to my house. |
Did I? Huh. Sorry.| So far I have never been in a situation where I've had to defend my property. I have the best security system money can buy. A 100 lb grumbly dog! Actually my little cute dog is probably more dangerous but nobody knows that. If the mongrels don't deter criminals then I have guns and I know how to use them. |
Actually, the reason you think a dog or two is sufficient for you to leave your home secure in the knowledge that it will still be your home when you get back is that everyone recognizes, now, that land ownership is a matter of public records, and not just who has the best marksmanship. So if a gang of thugs (who also know how to use guns) were to shoot the dogs, move in and say, "this is ours now," all you'd need to do is dial 911 and show the cops your ID.
You only pay for some of that sort of protection through taxes. The rest is paid through the taxes of people whose homes aren't invaded. If you never use such public services, then you're paying for the cops to knock on the door of the guy who likes to play his stereo loud on the other side of town. Is that fair? Or should his neighbors pay more to support the police because they're using those services more than you? Or, should we disband the police and as individuals hire whatever security teams we can afford?| If you don't think it's fair, then petition your legislators to regulate child-bearing. Get them to mandate parenting licenses. Arguably, parenting is much, much more risky (especially for the child) than driving, and we force people to take a test for the latter. Why should parenting be considered a right in the first place? |
I realize that you are most likely being facetious. You know, that IS actually what is in my heart but my brain tells me to think otherwise. It's a constant battle between my heart and my mind. |
Well, that's odd. For me, it's my brain that says we should regulate child-bearing, and my heart that complains that that's too harsh. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 16:07:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Ebone | I hope what I just wrote makes sense to you. Most people just don't understand. |
I understand the feelings.
| I would like to thank you for engaging me in this conversation and I hope that there are no hard feelings |
Of course not. :-) Thank you, too.
|
Alright, Cool!
I think I've taken this conversation about as far as I can take it. The only thing left would be trading insults and I'm not particularly interested in that. I'd rather be "Skeptic Friends"! |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2011 : 16:11:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, the reason you think a dog or two is sufficient for you to leave your home secure in the knowledge that it will still be your home when you get back is that everyone recognizes, now, that land ownership is a matter of public records, and not just who has the best marksmanship. So if a gang of thugs (who also know how to use guns) were to shoot the dogs, move in and say, "this is ours now," all you'd need to do is dial 911 and show the cops your ID.
|
Eh, too far fetched.
| Well, that's odd. For me, it's my brain that says we should regulate child-bearing, and my heart that complains that that's too harsh. |
Hehehehehe...... |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2011 : 14:18:41 [Permalink]
|
| On regulating child bearing: both my heart and head tell me that's a bad idea. Mostly because it has been done in other countries, and with horrific results. And birth rates and child abuse can be reduced through other measures which DON'T involve the government directly stopping people from having children they desire to have. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/12/2011 14:19:21 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
‘War on Poverty’ — Repug style?
