Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

welfare contradicts natural order!

gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 3:19:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 3:03:50 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Haha. Social Darwinist much?

MUCH!!! This one issue erks me to no end, because I know what percentage of my tax dollars go to these programs. I have also had a lot of personal experience in dealing with the people these programs support, and I don't want one more penny coming out of my pocket and going into their's. They shouldn't even have pockets at all until they get a job. I don't mind paying taxes to supplement people's hard work, but if you are unemployed I can only help you find work. Don't take food out of my kid's mouth to feed someone with no aspirations of supporting themselves.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 3:20:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 2:56:19 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
Only the strongest survive. Either get out, work, and be a productive member of society, or starve, freeze and die out. Period.

Bird parents feed their weak newborns, if they did as you ask them their species would be extinct.

(Yes I know, it's nearly a strawman).
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 3:54:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 3:20:58 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/1/2010 2:56:19 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
Only the strongest survive. Either get out, work, and be a productive member of society, or starve, freeze and die out. Period.

Bird parents feed their weak newborns, if they did as you ask them their species would be extinct.

(Yes I know, it's nearly a strawman).

Yes, parents feed their children, so that they may go out and fly on their own, not so some other birds can come feed it down the road.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 3:57:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 3:20:48 PM, Sieben wrote:
And yet even the weakest can provide sustenance for themselves.

Take away the passive aggressive undertone in that and you are correct. With hard work, even the weakest should be able to provide sustenance, therefore why should other citizens be providing that sustenance?
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 4:07:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 3:57:27 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 11/1/2010 3:20:48 PM, Sieben wrote:
And yet even the weakest can provide sustenance for themselves.

Take away the passive aggressive undertone in that and you are correct. With hard work, even the weakest should be able to provide sustenance, therefore why should other citizens be providing that sustenance?

Thats not what I mean at all. The weakest can use capital to augment their otherwise frail and inept existences.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 4:07:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
1. Society is not a "natural order."

2. There is no economic system based on "natural order."

3. Taxes that apply to social programs are negligible. If it's taking food out of your children's mouth, then you're easily nearly as weak as they from an economic vantage and you should die out soon, as well. In fact, given that the majority of working class people benefit from some social programs requiring tax money, you can watch the country fall to chaos while you do.
darkhearth
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 4:22:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
what about those who work hard each day but still stay out on the streets simply because they do not have any jobs?
Wouldn't these programs be beneficial to them as ?
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 4:24:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 4:07:26 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/1/2010 3:57:27 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 11/1/2010 3:20:48 PM, Sieben wrote:
And yet even the weakest can provide sustenance for themselves.

Take away the passive aggressive undertone in that and you are correct. With hard work, even the weakest should be able to provide sustenance, therefore why should other citizens be providing that sustenance?

Thats not what I mean at all. The weakest can use capital to augment their otherwise frail and inept existences.

I understood, but you used euphemistic language to insult capitalists. I just turned it around so it made sense. Surely, you must have realized that when I told you to take away the passive aggressive undertone...
Also, how do think people get capital, by being weak? They get it because they pay their bills and have established good credit. Are you being serious? If so, you might want to actually know something before posting on this one.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 4:33:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 4:07:42 PM, Ren wrote:
1. Society is not a "natural order."

Society is a natural order. We are social creatures by nature.

2. There is no economic system based on "natural order."

Good point. The economic system is not a natural order, but this was used metaphorically to bring about this very conversation.

3. Taxes that apply to social programs are negligible. If it's taking food out of your children's mouth, then you're easily nearly as weak as they from an economic vantage and you should die out soon, as well. In fact, given that the majority of working class people benefit from some social programs requiring tax money, you can watch the country fall to chaos while you do.

Try 40%. If that is negligable for you, you should die out, but when 40% is thousands of dollars out of my pocket, no dice. Make a little money one day and you might be singing a different song. Good luck. By the way, the country is already in chaos, so I need to save every dollar to get the hell out of here.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 4:34:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 4:24:59 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 11/1/2010 4:07:26 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/1/2010 3:57:27 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 11/1/2010 3:20:48 PM, Sieben wrote:
And yet even the weakest can provide sustenance for themselves.

Take away the passive aggressive undertone in that and you are correct. With hard work, even the weakest should be able to provide sustenance, therefore why should other citizens be providing that sustenance?

Thats not what I mean at all. The weakest can use capital to augment their otherwise frail and inept existences.

I understood, but you used euphemistic language to insult capitalists. I just turned it around so it made sense. Surely, you must have realized that when I told you to take away the passive aggressive undertone...
I'm an anarcho capitalist. Our conflict is over your approach to poor people. You think the DIY of capitalism is a good argument against wealth redistro. I think its a lousy argument because no one uses "survival" as a brightline to advocate government charity.

Also, how do think people get capital, by being weak? They get it because they pay their bills and have established good credit. Are you being serious? If so, you might want to actually know something before posting on this one.
Actually capital is given out for free at jobs. Most employees do not own their own cash registers and cranes.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 4:35:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 4:10:58 PM, badger wrote:
i've already covered this.. people on welfare are the scavengers.

No, I'm the scavanger when I go to the store, find a dead piece of cow and take it home and eat it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 4:38:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 4:35:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/1/2010 4:10:58 PM, badger wrote:
i've already covered this.. people on welfare are the scavengers.

No, I'm the scavanger when I go to the store, find a dead piece of cow and take it home and eat it.

nah, see.. you worked (hunted) to be able to get that piece of dead cow, whereas the welfarers scavenge from you to survive. we've just gone and complicated things.
signature
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 4:38:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 4:33:53 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 11/1/2010 4:07:42 PM, Ren wrote:
1. Society is not a "natural order."

Society is a natural order. We are social creatures by nature.

2. There is no economic system based on "natural order."

Good point. The economic system is not a natural order, but this was used metaphorically to bring about this very conversation.

3. Taxes that apply to social programs are negligible. If it's taking food out of your children's mouth, then you're easily nearly as weak as they from an economic vantage and you should die out soon, as well. In fact, given that the majority of working class people benefit from some social programs requiring tax money, you can watch the country fall to chaos while you do.

Try 40%. If that is negligable for you, you should die out, but when 40% is thousands of dollars out of my pocket, no dice. Make a little money one day and you might be singing a different song. Good luck. By the way, the country is already in chaos, so I need to save every dollar to get the hell out of here.

If you're paying 40%, then you are in one of the higher tax brackets, and so there is no food being taken out of your children's mouths. Or if there is, that is because you have a priority issue with your money and are an unfit father to begin with.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 4:40:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 3:19:16 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 11/1/2010 3:03:50 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Haha. Social Darwinist much?

MUCH!!! This one issue erks me to no end, because I know what percentage of my tax dollars go to these programs. I have also had a lot of personal experience in dealing with the people these programs support, and I don't want one more penny coming out of my pocket and going into their's. They shouldn't even have pockets at all until they get a job. I don't mind paying taxes to supplement people's hard work, but if you are unemployed I can only help you find work. Don't take food out of my kid's mouth to feed someone with no aspirations of supporting themselves.

I do understand your frustration and do despise people who abuse the welfare system. However, what about the disabled and people who are hard-working, but are having trouble finding work? Do you support charity for these people or what?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 4:40:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 4:38:13 PM, badger wrote:
At 11/1/2010 4:35:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/1/2010 4:10:58 PM, badger wrote:
i've already covered this.. people on welfare are the scavengers.

No, I'm the scavanger when I go to the store, find a dead piece of cow and take it home and eat it.

nah, see.. you worked (hunted) to be able to get that piece of dead cow, whereas the welfarers scavenge from you to survive. we've just gone and complicated things.

Technically, they would be parasitic, wouldn't they?

Complicating things is fun.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 4:41:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 4:40:30 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/1/2010 4:38:13 PM, badger wrote:
At 11/1/2010 4:35:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/1/2010 4:10:58 PM, badger wrote:
i've already covered this.. people on welfare are the scavengers.

No, I'm the scavanger when I go to the store, find a dead piece of cow and take it home and eat it.

nah, see.. you worked (hunted) to be able to get that piece of dead cow, whereas the welfarers scavenge from you to survive. we've just gone and complicated things.

Technically, they would be parasitic, wouldn't they?

Complicating things is fun.

i like it! thieves are the scavengers so.
signature
Anarcho
Posts: 887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 4:48:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 3:19:16 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 11/1/2010 3:03:50 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Haha. Social Darwinist much?

MUCH!!! This one issue erks me to no end, because I know what percentage of my tax dollars go to these programs. I have also had a lot of personal experience in dealing with the people these programs support, and I don't want one more penny coming out of my pocket and going into their's. They shouldn't even have pockets at all until they get a job. I don't mind paying taxes to supplement people's hard work, but if you are unemployed I can only help you find work. Don't take food out of my kid's mouth to feed someone with no aspirations of supporting themselves.

Ok read Mutual Aid. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu...
InsertNameHere wrote: "If we evolved from apes then why are apes still around?

This is semi-serious btw. It's something that seems strange to me. You'd think that entire species would cease to exist if other ones evolved from them."

Anarcho wrote: *facepalm*
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 4:51:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 4:34:01 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/1/2010 4:24:59 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 11/1/2010 4:07:26 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/1/2010 3:57:27 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 11/1/2010 3:20:48 PM, Sieben wrote:
And yet even the weakest can provide sustenance for themselves.

Take away the passive aggressive undertone in that and you are correct. With hard work, even the weakest should be able to provide sustenance, therefore why should other citizens be providing that sustenance?

Thats not what I mean at all. The weakest can use capital to augment their otherwise frail and inept existences.

I understood, but you used euphemistic language to insult capitalists. I just turned it around so it made sense. Surely, you must have realized that when I told you to take away the passive aggressive undertone...
I'm an anarcho capitalist. Our conflict is over your approach to poor people. You think the DIY of capitalism is a good argument against wealth redistro. I think its a lousy argument because no one uses "survival" as a brightline to advocate government charity.

Also, how do think people get capital, by being weak? They get it because they pay their bills and have established good credit. Are you being serious? If so, you might want to actually know something before posting on this one.
Actually capital is given out for free at jobs. Most employees do not own their own cash registers and cranes.

I'm starting to understand you, I think. However, I should have been more specific. I was speaking in terms of financial capital.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 4:59:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 4:41:53 PM, badger wrote:
At 11/1/2010 4:40:30 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/1/2010 4:38:13 PM, badger wrote:
At 11/1/2010 4:35:08 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/1/2010 4:10:58 PM, badger wrote:
i've already covered this.. people on welfare are the scavengers.

No, I'm the scavanger when I go to the store, find a dead piece of cow and take it home and eat it.

nah, see.. you worked (hunted) to be able to get that piece of dead cow, whereas the welfarers scavenge from you to survive. we've just gone and complicated things.

Technically, they would be parasitic, wouldn't they?

Complicating things is fun.

i like it! thieves are the scavengers so.

Thieves are aggressive scavengers, much like Hienas (they will steal food from cheetahs, because they can, but will wait for lions).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 5:06:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 4:38:50 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/1/2010 4:33:53 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 11/1/2010 4:07:42 PM, Ren wrote:
1. Society is not a "natural order."

Society is a natural order. We are social creatures by nature.

2. There is no economic system based on "natural order."

Good point. The economic system is not a natural order, but this was used metaphorically to bring about this very conversation.

3. Taxes that apply to social programs are negligible. If it's taking food out of your children's mouth, then you're easily nearly as weak as they from an economic vantage and you should die out soon, as well. In fact, given that the majority of working class people benefit from some social programs requiring tax money, you can watch the country fall to chaos while you do.

Try 40%. If that is negligable for you, you should die out, but when 40% is thousands of dollars out of my pocket, no dice. Make a little money one day and you might be singing a different song. Good luck. By the way, the country is already in chaos, so I need to save every dollar to get the hell out of here.

If you're paying 40%, then you are in one of the higher tax brackets, and so there is no food being taken out of your children's mouths. Or if there is, that is because you have a priority issue with your money and are an unfit father to begin with.

When you begin to understand this conversation, get back to me. I was telling you that 40% of tax dollars goes to these programs. Are you catching up yet? Now that you mention it, about 30% of my income goes to taxes, and 40% of that goes to these programs that I despise. Therefore, 12% of my total income goes straight to the unemployed and unemployable. Why should I have to pay these people thousands of dollars of my money? Do you even have a job? Do you know what it is to earn a living? If you don't, then you are part of the problem.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 5:08:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 4:40:14 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/1/2010 3:19:16 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 11/1/2010 3:03:50 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Haha. Social Darwinist much?

MUCH!!! This one issue erks me to no end, because I know what percentage of my tax dollars go to these programs. I have also had a lot of personal experience in dealing with the people these programs support, and I don't want one more penny coming out of my pocket and going into their's. They shouldn't even have pockets at all until they get a job. I don't mind paying taxes to supplement people's hard work, but if you are unemployed I can only help you find work. Don't take food out of my kid's mouth to feed someone with no aspirations of supporting themselves.

I do understand your frustration and do despise people who abuse the welfare system. However, what about the disabled and people who are hard-working, but are having trouble finding work? Do you support charity for these people or what?

I did not include VA benefits or disability in my figures. These people paid their dues.