Genocide? Really?

[AZhitman]

Life.

[audtatious]

Some people see a crack in the road as an insurmountable obstacle and will quit. Others see it as an opportunity or a challenge. In the big picture we all have some form of value to a society. Of those who quit and give up vs. those who see the opportunity/challenge, which do you find more important?

[AZhitman]

Why you gotta focus on the cracks in the road?

Oh, I see what's going on. It's because it's BLACK.

</JesseJackson>

[IBCoupe]

Life.

Careful, Greg, you're starting to sound like a Democrat.

[IBCoupe]

Some people see a crack in the road as an insurmountable obstacle and will quit. Others see it as an opportunity or a challenge. In the big picture we all have some form of value to a society. Of those who quit and give up vs. those who see the opportunity/challenge, which do you find more important?

Importance has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[heliochrome85]

like i said, alot of these people are born into drugs. their mother did drugs, everyone at their school does drugs. even if they didnt do drugs themselves, the environmentis toxic. you think cracky mom is buying the heathiest food at home? or is she subsisting on a Britney spears inspired diet of cheetos and pork rinds? What sort of health is that kid going to grow up with living on pizza, cheetos and pork rinds? yeah, so much for poor life choices. that kid should clearly go hook on the streets, so she can buy some tasty tasty pomegranites which will imbue her with vigor and vitality.

[stebo0728]

like i said, alot of these people are born into drugs. their mother did drugs, everyone at their school does drugs. even if they didnt do drugs themselves, the environmentis toxic. you think cracky mom is buying the heathiest food at home? or is she subsisting on a Britney spears inspired diet of cheetos and pork rinds? What sort of health is that kid going to grow up with living on pizza, cheetos and pork rinds? yeah, so much for poor life choices. that kid should clearly go hook on the streets, so she can buy some tasty tasty pomegranites which will imbue her with vigor and vitality.

Even better arguments that our money is wasted in the WAR ON DRUGS in the nation. Educate these people, help them with rehab, and they will climb the rest of the way out of their hole themselves, if they dont then thats their bag. As far as nutritional issues, you already posted a nice piece regarding intervention when parents neglect a students nutritional needs. There you go, educate there, teach the parents what to feed, if they fail to do so, theirs plenty of couple looking to adopt. Cut this generational depravity off early, and watch the children flourish, have helps in place, but as Ive said before, such helps are there once family/friends and private charity have been exhausted, and even then, its not a bottomless pit of gimme money. If you dont take the help your given and multiply it, then perhaps the gene pool is better for it. Make a clear distinction between people who can help themselves, and those who cant, help those who cant as best we can picking up the slack of the private sector charities. Any help offered to those who CAN help themselves should be very limited, and of an investment nature. Show people that we are absolutely going to hold them to every bit of personal responsibility that they can muster, not based on their own account of ability, but based on medical and psychological valuations, and if you spend that help up with no betterment to you situation, then your on your own.

[AZhitman]

Life.

Careful, Greg, you're starting to sound like a Democrat.

Uh, no.

A Democrat sees all those things as archenemies of the voter base, concocted in some big bad mean Capitalist's basement, foisted upon the weak and infirm, all of which can only be defeated by piling money on top of them.

I see us ALL as lying somewhere along multiple continua of intellect, motivation, physical strength, attractiveness, wit, and a myriad of other attributes, and all striving upwards (some of us upstream) towards a better life. Some have to swim harder than others. Some bear additional burdens along the way, others have a seemingly-unfairly light load. Some flounder in certain areas, while others float merrily along.

That's life.

Go ahead and try to control it. I'll be the guy smiling and shaking his head.

[IBCoupe]

A democrat sees the world as inherently unjust - where, for some people, all the hard work in the world won't overcome the basic facts of life: that you were screwed over by genetics, by economics, by disease. That's life, they'd say.

A republican sees the world as inherently just - if you work hard, you are rewarded for it. If you are failing, you need only apply yourself, and you'll be all the better for it, not only in standing, but also for the value in the journey made. That's life, they'd say.

A democrat would say that, if we're all to be given an equal opportunity in life, society, through government, must work to make up for the inequities of birthright, especially those created by society (like poverty), when they become too burdensome to overcome.

A republican would say that, if we're all to be given an equal opportunity in life, society, through government, should do its best to minimize the burden it places on a person to excel beyond his or her origins.

You're starting to trend Dem, friend, with the assumptions you seem to hold.

[audtatious]

Importance has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Why not?

[audtatious]

A democrat sees the world as inherently unjust - where, for some people, all the hard work in the world won't overcome the basic facts of life: that you were screwed over by genetics, by economics, by disease. That's life, they'd say.

So, to a Democrat, you are screwed over by something that is outside of your control? Thus, you are not to blame for your failures.

A republican sees the world as inherently just - if you work hard, you are rewarded for it. If you are failing, you need only apply yourself, and you'll be all the better for it, not only in standing, but also for the value in the journey made. That's life, they'd say.

I disagree with "inherently just". Sometimes the reward you get from hard work is the satisfaction of doing the task itself.

A democrat would say that, if we're all to be given an equal opportunity in life, society, through government, must work to make up for the inequities of birthright, especially those created by society (like poverty), when they become too burdensome to overcome.

Birthright? Poverty is created by society?
Again, it's not your fault you failed. Society was against you or you were not born white/in a rich family/in New York/etc. Since Gov should be there to force an equal opportunity your way then you have more rights as someone without, for whatever reason, than the person who is striving to succeed because your failure makes it obvious it's your birthright or society's fault.

A republican would say that, if we're all to be given an equal opportunity in life, society, through government, should do its best to minimize the burden it places on a person to excel beyond his or her origins.

No, a republican would not think equal opportunity comes through government. Remember, we are capitalistic and would think it's through non-regulation or the open market. Get your story together.

[96Qowner]

A republican would say that, if we're all to be given an equal opportunity in life, society, through government, should do its best to minimize the burden it places on a person to excel beyond his or her origins.

Not quite. A Republican would say that, if we're all to be given an equal opportunity in life, society, should do its best to minimize the burden it places on a person to excel beyond his or her origins.

As a Republican, I'm always wondering why government should be involved in supporting those on the bottom end of the bell curve. Government is a cruel and uncaring benefactor. Community, Church, Family ... these are the long-proven, traditional means of managing those that are simply not capable of coping. Government wastes precious resources, and substitutes for genuine human relationships. The history of government involvement in actually helping vulnerable populations is appalling.

[AZhitman]

Yeah, you missed that one badly, IB. You were spot-on otherwise, but that was never in dispute.

Trust me, I've been assessing my position on the political landscape for 22 years +. It's abundantly clear that, aside from my stance on personal freedoms and socially-liberal policies, I'm far from leaning Dem.

That's Libertarianism talking, no matter how hard the current crop of pathetic DNC carpetbaggers tries to co-opt it.

[IBCoupe]

Why not?

Because it is anathema to any concept of equal protection or opportunity?

Thus, you are not to blame for your failures.

This would be a rational interpretation had I not written "for some people."

Birthright? Poverty is created by society?

Did I stutter?

Again, it's not your fault you failed. Society was against you or you were not born white/in a rich family/in New York/etc. Since Gov should be there to force an equal opportunity your way then you have more rights as someone without, for whatever reason, than the person who is striving to succeed because your failure makes it obvious it's your birthright or society's fault.

This would be a reasonable interpretation if I hadn't written "when they become too burdensome to overcome." You're starting to piss me off, Aud. It's one thing to misinterpret what I write because of a failing on my part - it's another thing to make s*** up.

No, a republican would not think equal opportunity comes through government.

Not quite. A Republican would say that, if we're all to be given an equal opportunity in life, society, should do its best to minimize the burden it places on a person to excel beyond his or her origins.

See, Aud? This is a misinterpretation because of a failing on my part. When I wrote "through goverment," I meant that in the sense that it's the only way society writ large can do anything, collectively. That wasn't a suggestion as to a prefered toolset, that was an acknowledgement that most Republicans make that, if society outside of small, sporadic disorganized groups want to accomplish anything noteworthy, they'll have to operate through the government. It's a big country, fella's, some amount of centralization is inevitable and unavoidable.

[IBCoupe]

Yeah, you missed that one badly, IB. You were spot-on otherwise, but that was never in dispute.

I can't tell what I missed on - my assessment of you or my assessment of the left & right worldviews?

That's Libertarianism talking, no matter how hard the current crop of pathetic DNC carpetbaggers tries to co-opt it.

Just to let you know, I don't think that libertarianism got co-opted by the Democrats. Libertarians have always agreed strongly with both the left and right, and simultaneously disagreed strongly with both the left and right. Democrats and Republicans haven't really changed their positions that much, at least not in the last half-century.

[audtatious]

Why not?

Because it is anathema to any concept of equal protection or opportunity?

So, it's equal protection for them to be worthless to society but those who have worth are mandated to pay for those contributing nothing? That's the way it is today. If you support that world view then why don't you pay for it yourself and let me opt-out? Of course, you can't afford to pay for your world view so you must mandate that I help you pay for it. The other problem with your world view in this matter is that their numbers and demands are growing so you are contributing to a growing virus on society.

Thus, you are not to blame for your failures.

This would be a rational interpretation had I not written "for some people."

So, just some people are not to blame for their failures. Do you have other rules for those who are to blame or do they get the same treatment today as those who are not to blame?

Birthright? Poverty is created by society?

Did I stutter?

Just wanted to ensure you are actually making those worthless points.

Again, it's not your fault you failed. Society was against you or you were not born white/in a rich family/in New York/etc. Since Gov should be there to force an equal opportunity your way then you have more rights as someone without, for whatever reason, than the person who is striving to succeed because your failure makes it obvious it's your birthright or society's fault.

This would be a reasonable interpretation if I hadn't written "when they become too burdensome to overcome." You're starting to piss me off, Aud. It's one thing to misinterpret what I write because of a failing on my part - it's another thing to make s*** up.

Seems OK when you do it but not when I do it?

[IBCoupe]

So, it's equal protection for them to be worthless to society but those who have worth are mandated to pay for those contributing nothing? That's the way it is today. If you support that world view then why don't you pay for it yourself and let me opt-out? Of course, you can't afford to pay for your world view so you must mandate that I help you pay for it. The other problem with your world view in this matter is that their numbers and demands are growing so you are contributing to a growing virus on society.

No. That isn't what I've said. Try again.

So, just some people are not to blame for their failures. Do you have other rules for those who are to blame or do they get the same treatment today as those who are not to blame?

Yes, I do.

Just wanted to ensure you are actually making those worthless points.

Feel better?

Seems OK when you do it but not when I do it?

Quote me.

[AZhitman]

I can't tell what I missed on - my assessment of you or my assessment of the left & right worldviews?

N/M - You clarified nicely.

[audtatious]

Quote me.

What for? You've already stated you will argue points you don't believe in.

[IBCoupe]

Whether I believe it or not has absolutely nothing to do with your allegation that I've behaved in the way that you have: making crap up in the guise of responding to an argument.

Quote me or GTFO.

[audtatious]

Arguing something you don't believe in makes it worthless to have conversations with you on anything as it's a guess whether or not you are being manipulative out of boredom.

GTFO? GFY

[IBCoupe]

Arguing something you don't believe in makes it worthless to have conversations with you on anything as it's a guess whether or not you are being manipulative out of boredom.

GTFO? GFY

Dude, are you retarded? Whether I believe a thing is 100% immaterial to your ability to debate it. Either it has logical validity or it doesn't. Either you can counter it or you can't. The meaning is absolutely unchanged whether you assume I believe what I've said or whether you assume that I don't. Grow a brain and then use it. This isn't the first time I've had to explain this to you; get over it.

At this point in the conversation, and given your failure to demonstrate anything of the sort, I'm going to go ahead and assume you were talking out of your a** before and that you don't have any example of me making up something in the guise of a response to a specific point, as I accused you of doing.

[audtatious]

"A democrat sees the world as inherently unjust - where, for some people, all the hard work in the world won't overcome the basic facts of life: that you were screwed over by genetics, by economics, by disease. That's life, they'd say."

"This would be a rational interpretation had I not written "for some people.""

The above, based upon you agreeing with:

Birthright? Poverty is created by society?

Sorry, I simply think it is retarded to think people in general can't overcome. No, I'm not talking about the small percentage of the population that are physically incapable. Seems I'm becoming more and more a minority in the current environment. Guess it's all because of my birthright as a white male and not my work ethic. Hell, what is poverty today? Only having one HD TV, a slightly outdated ipad, and only a 2 bedroom section 8 apartment?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, WTF ever. Knock yourself out.

[IBCoupe]

And your opinion is one that's common on the right. There's just as many people (probably a great many more, if we extend our view beyond American borders) that hold the opposite belief: that your success or failure in life is determined in great part by the home to which you are born. It's much harder for poor children to grow up to be rich than it is for rich children to do the same. While most on the right acknowledge this to be true, the difference I find usually comes where the most die-hard on the right will tell you that there's never a case where it's true, whereas the wackiest on the left will tell you that it's always the case - you are what you're born to be, unless government steps in and helps you be something else.

[heliochrome85]

Hell, what is poverty today? Only having one HD TV, a slightly outdated ipad, and only a 2 bedroom section 8 apartment?

would you rather us institute a system where there was a litmus test, and that only the poorest of the poor, those with Tube TVs were given aid? wouldnt the Right be up in arms about Government mandating what you could and couldnt buy and how that was UNAmerican?


im only slightly joking.

you are smarter than this argument matt. cmon, where's your a game?

[IBCoupe]

would you rather us institute a system where there was a litmus test, and that only the poorest of the poor, those with Tube TVs were given aid? wouldnt the Right be up in arms about Government mandating what you could and couldnt buy and how that was UNAmerican?

Actually, most of the arguments I've encountered say that whatever restrictions the government wants to put on government handouts is just fine and dandy.

Probably those arguments would make exceptions for unreasonable restrictions (race, for example).

[audtatious]

would you rather us institute a system where there was a litmus test, and that only the poorest of the poor, those with Tube TVs were given aid? wouldnt the Right be up in arms about Government mandating what you could and couldnt buy and how that was UNAmerican?


im only slightly joking.

you are smarter than this argument matt. cmon, where's your a game?

More like a time line of benefits with mandated service to receive services.

I'm rich so WTF do I know? I have the easy life and don't understand.

[heliochrome85]

CAN I HAVE YOUR CAR PLZ?

preferrably the G37 Coupe.

[audtatious]

I should give it to you. By birthright I was rich and simply should be mandated to give it away.

[IBCoupe]

You were probably joking, and usually I'll just roll my eyes at such obvious fallacies, but I'm gonna nip this in the bud:

Recognizing that we are all born to particular circumstances (and that for some this means maybe being unable to escape poverty) does not tell us what we, as a society, are to do about it, to what degree we act, or on whose behalf.

Certainly your comment was one way to resolve the issue, but it looks like another strawman to me, as nobody's advocated, except you via sarcasm.