Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Unemployed deserve to be killed

Lepricon
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 8:05:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Explain to me why the Unemployed deserve the right to life. Guarantee not even the most well educated liberal can convince me they deserve the right to life.
I hate black people
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 8:07:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The temporarily unemployed can still try to get jobs. And why waste the bullets? Give them time to get a new job until they run out of savings.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 8:08:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 8:05:28 PM, Lepricon wrote:
Explain to me why the Unemployed deserve the right to life. Guarantee not even the most well educated liberal can convince me they deserve the right to life.

I would like you to challenge me to a debate on this issue.
Lepricon
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 8:10:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 8:07:48 PM, mongeese wrote:
The temporarily unemployed can still try to get jobs. And why waste the bullets? Give them time to get a new job until they run out of savings.

Hmm, maybe I didn't specify enough. Of course one can be unemployed temporarily, but I am more directed at those who refuse to work, or more specifically those who employ the use of welfare.
I hate black people
BrandonClark
Posts: 500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 8:10:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Debate.org forums are not the best place for this. Go try the Politics or Society forums, much better fit for this.
BLACKHAWKS 6-5 lN OVERTIME!!!
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 8:11:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 8:05:28 PM, Lepricon wrote:
Explain to me why the Unemployed deserve the right to life. Guarantee not even the most well educated liberal can convince me they deserve the right to life.

Technically Lepricon, you are considered Unemployed. By your own belief, you should die as well. The Unemployed should not die, for a multiple of reasons. I am sensing you may be a racist idealist who has lost a sense of realism in the world.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 8:11:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
What unemployed.

"Are you unemployed?"
"No."
"Who hired you?"
"I'm self-employed.'
"What do you do?"
"I watch TV all day. $10 an hour, dude!"
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Lepricon
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 8:15:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
hahaha

Well I am actually surprised at what I am hearing. Ima make a new thread soon, but for now I guess Unemployed is too subjective to define that which i want killed.
TKO by DDO
I hate black people
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 8:49:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Justice, or deserving, is the law of causality applied to human action. What the unemployed are doing, precisely is --failure to cause. They do not "Deserve to live," but neither do they deserve to be positively killed. They 'negatively deserve' a "default death" (starvation).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 8:50:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The permanently unemployed that is.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 8:45:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 8:05:28 PM, Lepricon wrote:
Explain to me why the Unemployed deserve the right to life. Guarantee not even the most well educated liberal can convince me they deserve the right to life.

1) Minors
2) Handicapped People
3) Everyone has a right to life. They don't have a right to welfare though.
4) Um, it's a recession. And there aren't a lot of jobs.

From what I can tell, you're a fairly ignorant individual. I'm not Pro Welfare either but the way you've stated your "arguments" are less than insightful... or amusing. There are other ways to get your point across that you don't believe in welfare :)
President of DDO
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 10:20:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 8:45:57 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/29/2009 8:05:28 PM, Lepricon wrote:
Explain to me why the Unemployed deserve the right to life. Guarantee not even the most well educated liberal can convince me they deserve the right to life.

1) Minors
2) Handicapped People
3) Everyone has a right to life. They don't have a right to welfare though.
4) Um, it's a recession. And there aren't a lot of jobs.

From what I can tell, you're a fairly ignorant individual. I'm not Pro Welfare either but the way you've stated your "arguments" are less than insightful... or amusing. There are other ways to get your point across that you don't believe in welfare :)

+rep

Would you agree with Lwerd R_R?
Don't I take care of them all?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 10:39:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Lepricon was banned, presumably because of his horrendous spelling of Leprechaun.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 10:41:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 9:05:43 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/29/2009 8:49:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They 'negatively deserve' a "default death" (starvation).

*Applause*

Seconded
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 12:17:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 8:05:28 PM, Lepricon wrote:
Explain to me why the Unemployed deserve the right to life. Guarantee not even the most well educated liberal can convince me they deserve the right to life.

All humans are unemployed at some point in their life, meaning genocide for humanity.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 12:20:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 10:41:21 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/29/2009 9:05:43 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/29/2009 8:49:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They 'negatively deserve' a "default death" (starvation).

*Applause*

Seconded

Are you completely against welfare/workfare? Or you only think those who are perpetually on welfare "negatively deserve" a "default death"?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 12:23:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 12:17:36 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 9/29/2009 8:05:28 PM, Lepricon wrote:
Explain to me why the Unemployed deserve the right to life. Guarantee not even the most well educated liberal can convince me they deserve the right to life.

All humans are unemployed at some point in their life, meaning genocide for humanity.

He said Liberal and you're from Tennessee
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 12:43:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 12:20:30 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 9/30/2009 10:41:21 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/29/2009 9:05:43 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/29/2009 8:49:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They 'negatively deserve' a "default death" (starvation).

*Applause*

Seconded

Are you completely against welfare/workfare? Or you only think those who are perpetually on welfare "negatively deserve" a "default death"?

I think that money should be set aside to assist those who lose employment by means beyond their control, for a set amount of time (unemployment benefits). After that, they can file for "welfare" in which they will be required to relocate to government housing and apply for menial government-assigned labor. They would be paid minimum wage, less the cost of maintaining government housing.

That way, people who are really down on their luck will be able to sustain themselves while getting back on their feet, while useless bottom-feeders are left to starve.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 12:46:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 12:43:00 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I think that money should be set aside to assist those who lose employment by means beyond their control, for a set amount of time (unemployment benefits). After that, they can file for "welfare" in which they will be required to relocate to government housing and apply for menial government-assigned labor. They would be paid minimum wage, less the cost of maintaining government housing.

So, in short you support workfare. The only except being that they must locate to affordable government subsidized housing?

That way, people who are really down on their luck will be able to sustain themselves while getting back on their feet, while useless bottom-feeders are left to starve.

I'm with you on the first half, but the second half I am cautious to agree. It might sound nice to leave the bottom feeders to starve. The only problem is that those people won't starve, they will turn to criminal activities. Violent crime would likely rise as a result.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 12:48:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 12:43:00 PM, Kleptin wrote:
...while useless bottom-feeders are left to starve.

I'll agree that something must be done about them. I just don't know what.

P.S. Shouldn't you be studying, young man!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 12:51:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Mostly yeppers to Britt (I wouldn't say EVERYONE deserves the "right to life," but one has to do something to lose it), and yeppers on the count of completeness to Jblake.

Obviously, if they choose the violent crime option rather than the be productive or the starve option, then by that action they stop just deserving the default death and also deserve a special one :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 1:04:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 12:46:10 PM, JBlake wrote:
So, in short you support workfare. The only except being that they must locate to affordable government subsidized housing?

Yes. In order to be considered for "workfare", they should not have any considerable assets. If they have enough money to maintain an apartment or house, they have enough money to sustain themselves while seeking employment. By signing up for this, they give the government the option to seize all assets, including, but not limited to, housing, transportation, luxury items.

However, this would not be subsidized housing. If anything, it would be more a combination of a prison and a homeless shelter.

That way, people who are really down on their luck will be able to sustain themselves while getting back on their feet, while useless bottom-feeders are left to starve.

I'm with you on the first half, but the second half I am cautious to agree. It might sound nice to leave the bottom feeders to starve. The only problem is that those people won't starve, they will turn to criminal activities. Violent crime would likely rise as a result.

The people it excludes are the people who refuse to find work, and who expect the government to pay for their miserable existence. The increase you speak of would only be the hypothetical situation in which a person must turn to crime for survival. If it really gets that bad, why wouldn't they sign up for the program above?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 1:05:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 12:48:54 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 9/30/2009 12:43:00 PM, Kleptin wrote:
...while useless bottom-feeders are left to starve.

I'll agree that something must be done about them. I just don't know what.

P.S. Shouldn't you be studying, young man!

ehehehehe ^^;;;

*runs away*
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 1:27:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 12:23:14 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/30/2009 12:17:36 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 9/29/2009 8:05:28 PM, Lepricon wrote:
Explain to me why the Unemployed deserve the right to life. Guarantee not even the most well educated liberal can convince me they deserve the right to life.

All humans are unemployed at some point in their life, meaning genocide for humanity.

He said Liberal and you're from Tennessee

Not sure what your point is. I didn't argue that anyone had the right to life and am not one who adheres to merely a single ideology.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 3:39:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 2:31:04 PM, LeafRod wrote:
How often do people refuse to work, refuse to do anything, and just live off welfare?

Eh, you'd be surprised at the amount of people that do. I know a couple myself, and I couldn't imagine how many others are out there.

But that being said, there will always be abuse with the system; you can't ignore or neglect it, but you also can't write off the entire system based on it. A lot of anti-welfare activists say that the welfare system should be scrapped because it can be easily abused; well so can the credit system, the internet, alcohol, tobacco, emissions, power, etc. Should the simple fact that someone can be abused be enough to discount it altogether? No; you should work to make sure the abuse is minimal and those caught face punishment. Cutting it off altogether hurts those that use it legally and properly more than those that abuse it.
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 5:30:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 12:51:07 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Mostly yeppers to Britt (I wouldn't say EVERYONE deserves the "right to life," but one has to do something to lose it), and yeppers on the count of completeness to Jblake.

Obviously, if they choose the violent crime option rather than the be productive or the starve option, then by that action they stop just deserving the default death and also deserve a special one :).

Fair enough. We are actually in complete agreement on the second part, except that we don't live in Minority Report and the useless bottom-feeders that turned to violent crime would actually have to commit the crime before they were punished. That may be an inevitability but it seems, at least on the face of it, that there would be a large number of "innocent" victims that go down the drain with the bottom-feeders. A swift and actual justice system would help, but that's a different issue. In other words, that's the way it should be anyway, but it doesn't change the fact that enacting the kind of reform you're talking about would cause crime to skyrocket.

"I think that money should be set aside to assist those who lose employment by means beyond their control, for a set amount of time (unemployment benefits). After that, they can file for "welfare" in which they will be required to relocate to government housing and apply for menial government-assigned labor. They would be paid minimum wage, less the cost of maintaining government housing.

That way, people who are really down on their luck will be able to sustain themselves while getting back on their feet, while useless bottom-feeders are left to starve." - Kleptin

This might be the first time I have ever disagreed with Kleptin (but it's hard to tell with two sophists.)
First, there simply isn't that much government housing. As far as I can tell, there are only 1.2 million public housing units in the U.S. (as of 2003) to begin with (although "units" is ambiguous, and this does seem like a small number.)
http://www.phada.org...
Compare that with the number of people today who lost their jobs by means beyond their control... It depends somewhat on how long your unemployment benefits would last, but either way, it still seems far short of feasible.

Second, and this is only observational speculation, is that there aren't that many menial jobs.

Third is that minimum wage, especially minus housing costs mentioned, does not even begin to provide a living wage. My friend works at a minimum-wage job. He nets about $750 a month. His rent: $550 (for a one-bedroom s**thole.) Lights: roughly $80-130, depending. Gas: about $20-30. Water: $20. That's $670, before buying food, paying for car insurance, car note, health insurance (which his minimum-wage job does not provide) or even buying normal things like a good American consumer should. Now, my friend does receive Section-8 and food stamps. Because without them, even with a minimum-wage job that is not menial, he would be homeless. Employed, but homeless.

And I don't mean to be a human or anything, but no I don't think that just because you don't have a job you deserve to starve to death. Mutual Reciprocity? Assume they nearly starve to death. But by a fine stroke of fortune they then get on their feet and even make it into a position of some power, even President. They then set about on making the policy "All of you bastards that made the former policy must now die." Anyone recall the end of Republican Rome? The French Revolution?

There is nothing wrong with hard work, and reaping the benefits of that work. However, at some point one has to simply ask: How much is enough? Will another few thousand dollars in taxes from your (rhetorical "your") millions in profit this year, not from working hard but from making money off of other people's money (or whatever) *really* be the end of the world? (This is addressed to the top 1% of households, which own 95% of the country's wealth, and which I doubt any DDo members belong to.) By the same token, those with the welfare-state mentality ingrained in them must understand that no, no one really *owes* them anything, for any reason. (This was addressed to those that make a living by scamming the system.) It's simply the right thing to do, within reason.

Britt
Don't I take care of them all?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 8:50:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 5:30:46 PM, brittwaller wrote:
This might be the first time I have ever disagreed with Kleptin (but it's hard to tell with two sophists.)

;)

First, there simply isn't that much government housing. As far as I can tell, there are only 1.2 million public housing units in the U.S. (as of 2003) to begin with (although "units" is ambiguous, and this does seem like a small number.)

I'm not talking about habitation that currently exists. I'm talking about large compounds that would probably be considered fire hazards.

The Japanese have these awesome buildings where a room is about the size of a walk-in closet, rented especially for students and away-from-home workers, boasting the cheapest rent available and more efficient than US homeless shelters, for the equivalent of about $10-$30 a night.

Second, and this is only observational speculation, is that there aren't that many menial jobs.

Not a problem. It's essentially free labor. The money is coming from the pool set aside for welfare and whatnot anyway. The only difference is that people have to work for what they used to get for free.

Third is that minimum wage, especially minus housing costs mentioned, does not even begin to provide a living wage. My friend works at a minimum-wage job. He nets about $750 a month.

If they choose to work 8 hour days for 5 days a week, at a rate of $7 an hour, then they would make approximately $1000 a month. These people don't have to pay taxes, and $450 would cover the living expenses in their entirety. Remember, these are government rooms. $15 a night would cover a tiny room with a bed, desk, chair, toilet, and storage space. $300 would be put towards government-issued/subsidized food. $150 towards a health fund that covers medication and hospitalization fees, to an extent. The remaining $100 worth for other things. Quarters for showers, laundry, computer usage, electricity for the room in case a person wants to use personal appliances, used as a person sees fit. It would be enough for a person to take two showers and use 2 hours of the computer daily, and do one load of laundry a week.

In exchange for labor, 90% of the money put into this person goes right back to the government, with only 10% as actual spending money (Showers, computer, laundry, and electricity are optional but chances are that this goes back to the government anyway) and to be honest, it's a pretty good existence. Just one without any pleasure or enjoyment.

Of course, these people also have the option of working more hours, more days a week. If they work 10 hour days for 6 days a week, they'll make $700 more a month. That's a fair chunk of change. If $1000 a month could sustain all your possible needs for survival, $700 as pure free money would make a miserable existence a fairly happy one.

And I don't mean to be a human or anything, but no I don't think that just because you don't have a job you deserve to starve to death. Mutual Reciprocity? Assume they nearly starve to death. But by a fine stroke of fortune they then get on their feet and even make it into a position of some power, even President. They then set about on making the policy "All of you bastards that made the former policy must now die." Anyone recall the end of Republican Rome? The French Revolution?

No, no trampling on human rights. Everything is accounted for. They're taken better care of than prisoners.

There is nothing wrong with hard work, and reaping the benefits of that work. However, at some point one has to simply ask: How much is enough? Will another few thousand dollars in taxes from your (rhetorical "your") millions in profit this year, not from working hard but from making money off of other people's money (or whatever) *really* be the end of the world? (This is addressed to the top 1% of households, which own 95% of the country's wealth, and which I doubt any DDo members belong to.) By the same token, those with the welfare-state mentality ingrained in them must understand that no, no one really *owes* them anything, for any reason. (This was addressed to those that make a living by scamming the system.) It's simply the right thing to do, within reason.

And I think that implementing the system I propose instead of our actual welfare/unemployment program will minimize the chance of abuse while allowing actual hard workers to get their momentum going again.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.