Originally Posted by EyeKnows

lol @ conservatives.

we want less gov't.

except when we wanna dictate to poor people what they can and can't do.

conservatives - we are just trying to help.

Telling people they can't use the money given to them on shit they don't need is more government? Lol?

 

Originally Posted by Magnet Steve

http://thebillfold.com/2012/05/young...r-food-stamps/

Are these the people you had in mind, kellykip?

OH MY FUCKING HEAD I MEAN I DON'T EVEN

 

Originally Posted by kellykip

their obligation to help those in society less fortunate

what obligation?

I would consider a gov that throws money out the window willy nilly to be larger and more of a problem than one that doesnt allow the money to be wasted. I consider that a control on the government, not on the people. The gov isn't stopping anyone from buying cigs booze and dice, they're just not paying for it. It's free money ffs. Anyone demanding to use welfare or help for yourneedy family (ffs) to buy vodka must be out they minds. Reminds me of the bums on the street who get mad when you offer them food bc they just want cash to get fucked up. I can understand someone who needs some food or clothes, but a cigar? Gfy

 

Originally Posted by TheWacoKidd

what obligation?

Moral obligation as fellow members of society, if not an obligation in a strictly legal sense.

 

Originally Posted by kellykip

Moral obligation as fellow members of society, if not an obligation in a strictly legal sense.

ones moral obligation is to take care of their family

this obligation to take care of other human beings is just bullshit. If you consistently worry about others than you run the risk of alienating those closest to you.

If you have the means to do it without taking time and money away from your family than by all means go for it.

One of the biggest donators of time and money to the poor are religious people. Guess what....they are shit on right and left here.

 

Originally Posted by Prestonluv

ones moral obligation is to take care of their family

this obligation to take care of other human beings is just bullshit. If you consistently worry about others than you run the risk of alienating those closest to you.

I would just like to point out that this attitude is the end result of a pluralistic, atomized, multicultural society; the obligation to your fellow man dies away. We don't have communities anymore, we just have small family units going it alone against the world. No wonder so many people are unhappy.

The thing about ethnic nationalism is that is solves this problem... but its failure condition is world war and genocide. This modern world we have inherited is a ball of complexity. Hopefully we solve it before civilization falls. No one wants another Dark Ages, especially if there's no Eastern Empire to keep the light of knowledge lit in the interregnum.

 

Originally Posted by Magnet Steve

I would just like to point out that this attitude is the end result of a pluralistic, atomized, multicultural society; the obligation to your fellow man dies away. We don't have communities anymore, we just have small family units going it alone against the world. No wonder so many people are unhappy.

The thing about ethnic nationalism is that is solves this problem... but it's failure condition is world war and genocide. This modern world we have inherited is a ball of complexity. Hopefully we solve it before civilization falls. No one wants another Dark Ages, especially if there's no Eastern Empire to keep the light of knowledge lit in the interregnum.

Steve,

i am not talking about not helping out your neighbors or people at your kids school. We are basically helping raise a third kid because her mom is a single parent who has weird work hours.

I am talking about giving random money to the poor or helping others before you help your own family.

One should always put family first finanically and emotionally. If you have time and money after that to help others w/o hindering your won family relationship than thats admirable.

I think people relate helping others to giving money to the poor or helping out others that are not a part of your everyday life.. This is horseshit imo. Ones needs to take care of their own and then help out in their own neighborhood(like you said) and schools.

 

Originally Posted by EyeKnows

very large men with the ability to maintain and use weapons will like it when we enter another dark age.

So what will the Asian guys do?

 

Originally Posted by EyeKnows

very large men with the ability to maintain and use weapons will like it when we enter another dark age.

Very large men with the ability to maintain and use weapons also get cancer. Maybe we can appeal to their self-interest.

 

Originally Posted by Magnet Steve

Very large men with the ability to maintain and use weapons also get cancer. Maybe we can appeal to their self-interest.

but not before they have very successfully spread their genes into the next generation.

 

Originally Posted by EyeKnows

= less gov't?

= exact same gov't?

typical conservative attitude - we like less gov't.

except when we wanna tell you what shit you don't need.

Less government would be the government not giving them any money.

 

Originally Posted by kellykip

Moral obligation as fellow members of society, if not an obligation in a strictly legal sense.

Moral obligations can only be met in situations where no force is present. Forced "charity" isn't moral.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Moral obligations can only be met in situations where no force is present. Forced "charity" isn't moral.

Our definitions of 'forced' are quite different

 

Originally Posted by kellykip

Our definitions of 'forced' are quite different

You don't consider the power of the law and the government might behind it to be "force"? When a state tries to restrict abortions, are they not forcing the mother to keep the baby? When a government takes money from the wealthy to give to the poor are they not forcing the wealthy to give to the poor?

 

Originally Posted by kellykip

The problem in debating you is that you will never believe that a society has any obligation to protect and assist it's most vulnerable members, if it means in some fashion coming out of the pockets of those who aren't suffering.

No, the problem in debating me is you still don't understand that I don't believe "society" equals "government". The other problem with debating me is you don't believe the government should protect people's property, I do.