That's what the rats in the maze think when they finally get the cheese.
Was Lazarus A 'Bum'?
- Thread starter Arthur Brain
- Start date
I already noted your propensity to use that in lieu of real and substantive rebuttal.
That's not much better and no more factual.
Your judgment isn't controlling and your evaluations are suspect (see: post 315). You've pulled this "there's something you haven't addressed and no matter what you invite or say I'm not going to set out what it is" deflection before.
It wasn't any more impressive or accurate then. If you can't engage me or it moves you to the sort of shenanigans you're practicing in this thread, move on. Don't worry me and I'll forget you ever said something that sounded like anything.
And very similar, especially where they intersect with my actual point, which wasn't your above.
That's an interesting shift from:
Here's my continuing rebuttal of the latter.
We collectively elect people to stand in our place and speak for us. When they spend our collective money on projects from defense to welfare, they do it in our name. Welfare is, therefore, a public charity, a willful, intentional giving to those in need from a common purse. Of course, we do a bit more than that and, unlike the average person, we can investigate both if the person in question is needy and take more particular measures to see to it that our funds actually address the problem.
A declaration isn't an idea to respect. It's a bumper sticker. Note that when I met your declaration "Welfare is not charity" I did quite a bit more in response. A conversation requires more than nopes, misrepresentations and declarations.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Except I did, you for a start. Don't know your own name?
Wouldn't altogether surprise me considering how often you refer to yourself as "we"...
You endorse an upsurge in poverty? Well "kudos" for at least being honest enough to admit it. Please reserve your mantras for elsewhere though.
No, because common sense says so. Get some. I also happen to work for a charity and they deal with poverty on a national and international scale, including those who are struggling to live on benefits. What have you got exactly besides ignorance and a boatload of pompous arrogance?
Society certainly does so how much more poverty do you suppose would transpire when that welfare net is taken away? Charity can't cover all of those who fall through it and your judgmental attitude is nothing more than puffed up rhetoric.
What you endorse would increase poverty by the proverbial mile and then some. Charity has no way of reaching everyone who falls through the safety net let alone without one in place. That's a fact.
Whereas you are doing what here exactly? You're all for doing away with a safety net for those out of work so how about you explain, in intricate detail, how charity would reach all of those in need and how poverty wouldn't rise at all. I'll wait while that doesn't happen.
What? Be coherent will ya?
You're catching on.
I was already up to speed. Please follow suit.
Well thank you captain soundbite.
You're just flat out ignorant, or worse informed and simply don't care.
This is the fallacy of begging the question. You've assumed the truth of your own narrative and are refusing to consider the opposition's opinion.
Well, we have evidence. Under the system you endorse there is poverty, there is rampant dependency and there is resentment.
Good for you.
Facts.
The people who are dependent on the state would have to become self-dependent. :thumb:
Businesses that struggle to start would not be so burdened by taxes and regulations.
All the people who work for the welfare departments would be free to do something constructive instead of processing applications and judging people's situations.
Neither can welfare, which has the added disadvantage of creating needy people. Charity isn't an institution; it is a virtue. We don't legislate good deeds. That just eliminates good deeds, because now it's the law.
I feel confident that with time and counseling, you'll get over yourself. :thumb:
You've spent exactly no time considering how a welfare-free society might work and are ignoring the evidence against the welfare state.
:chuckle:
That's a mess, ain't it?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh, you didn't get around to explaining how a homeless person asking for spare change is a form of 'work' either Stripe. So how about you get to that as well?
lain:
Well, when you insist on pulling single words out of context there's every chance you'll miss the substance.
I've said stuff before, therefore... something. :idunno:
I think we all know why you would prefer I stay silent.
:darwinsm:
X and Y are very different is entirely compatible with X is not Y.
For example, 14 and 38 trillion are very different and...
:shocked:
... they're not the same.
You're just saying things to make sure the discussion gets buried.
Here is what you will not respond sensibly to:
Charity is not welfare.
Charity is a man seeing a need and meeting it. Welfare is the state taking taxes without justification.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well no, logic and common sense bereft of bias establishes the position. Remove a safety net and poverty escalates through the roof regardless of your sensibilities on the matter. If you seriously can't do the math on that then hey.
Poverty isn't the byproduct of the system. Under your 'ideal' there'd be tons of it but don't let that royal 'we' of yours in any way hinder your pompous bias.
Thanks.
No, you don't else you wouldn't adopt such a ridiculous position to begin with. No charity would endorse what you suggest and you know it.
Well several already are if you classify begging on the streets as "work" eh Stripe?
lain: Oh please, that's just pathetic.
Yeah, they could make a career in begging if nothing else...
What, you mean people who just try and get by on the basics? Nothing is stopping you from giving to charitable causes or simply being a compassionate human being to someone in need Stripe simply because there's a system in place that provides for those out of or unable to work.
Whereas with you I don't have the same confidence. Still...
A welfare free state would increase poverty so unless I consider that a good thing then there's nothing to note as a positive argument from those that would glibly eradicate it.
It fit right into the morass sadly...
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Seriously? You're pointing to some fraud case in the "Daily Fail" as an argument? You've already expressed that begging was a form of 'work' from a biblical perspective so instead of dredging up tabloid articles about those who defraud the system in place then how about you get to explaining as to how most homeless people are "working" by laying about on the streets and asking for change?
Know what homeless people often get as a "wage"? The same as Lazarus...
Another charge you won't sustain and one, again, set against your actual practice of manipulating text to alter more than appearance.
Post 315. You've made accusations you can only sustain against your own practice.
I'd think anyone reading you would know why it's better for everyone concerned at this point. More seriously, that's Stripe inventing something again.
I noted a shift. You're acting like I noted a negation.
lain: You went from the emphatic one is not to they're very different. Sell that any way that suits you.I literally did that and only just reposted it in my last.
lain: Here it goes again. Likely unanswered, again.We collectively elect people to stand in our place and speak for us. When they spend our collective money on projects from defense to welfare, they do it in our name. Welfare is, therefore, a public charity, a willful, intentional giving to those in need from a common purse.
You haven't met and refuted a single point in that posit, which establishes welfare as a public charity in any meaningful sense.
It's one form. It's not the only and, as I've pointed out prior, it's impractical to meet the issue of poverty in America.
Rather, taxes are taken and then utilized in any number of ways and justification is a bit like beauty. In our country, the principle is that we help our neighbor in need and every American is our neighbor.
All charity does is help with food and clothes. And barely, because in truth most of you just aren't charitable.
That's just reality, people can take offense all they want- but when you consider that 40% of Americans say they are practicing Christians, yet not only can they not help the .5% that are in poverty, but are complaining about welfare, than that about wraps it up
What I find truly ironic is that in most cities, all lined with protestant churches, the one who provides the majority of charity is the Catholic Church.
By a landslide
lain:That's not me giving the Catholic Church ~accolades~, that's just me reinforcing the point above.
glassjester
Well-known member
the one who provides the majority of charity is the Catholic Church.
By a landslide
Boomshakalaka! Up top! :cheers:
Aw...
glassjester
Well-known member
Then any and every use of tax money is justified?
Helping the poor and disadvantaged is a noble use of tax money, so long as there aren't enough good jobs and opportunity for everyone.
:idunno:
It's not much of an argument. I think begging is work. You don't.
There's not a lot riding on it, as long as you understand the difference in our opinions.
Given that you understand little from the Bible, I decided not to go with that example.
I'm not in the habit of running around looking to provide evidence that you quote a single word of mine and cut its relevance off from the substance of what I say. :idunno:
:allsmile:
It's becoming clear why you want these discussions to be about who lied where.
I think anyone reading you would know why it's better for everyone concerned at this point. More seriously, that's Town inventing something again.
It's not a shift. :idunno:
They're not the same and they're very different. Those two phrases are practically the same thing. It looks like you'll do anything to create an argument.
Sell that any way that suits you.
Nope. Charity is when a man sees a need and meets it. Welfare and charity are very different things.
You haven't met and refuted a single point in that posit, which does not establish welfare as a public charity in any meaningful sense.
Nope.
You're thinking of charity as in an aid organization. I have defined charity as a man seeing a need and meeting it. That could entail anything from dropping a few dollars on someone to offering them a job.
And you know this how?
Where are you getting this from?That's just reality, people can take offense all they want- but when you consider that 40% of Americans say they are practicing Christians, yet not only can they not help the .5% that are in poverty, but are complaining about welfare, than that about wraps it up
The percentage of Christians who would endorse ending state welfare is tiny.
Congratulations. :thumb:What I find truly ironic is that in most cities, all lined with protestant churches, the one who provides the majority of charity is the Catholic Church. By a landslide
Here's an example that shows perfectly how you are completely disinterested in a sensible discussion.
Businesses that struggle to start would not be so burdened by taxes and regulations.
Fact, in fact.
If there was no state welfare, the tax burden would be much lower. Businesses would be more able to start and thrive, boosting employment.
Facts.
Your response shows that you are completely unwilling to consider societal change.
Presumably, the only reason you are so resistant is because the ideas come from a fundamentalist, because you've got nothing born of reason.
Businesses that struggle to start would not be so burdened by taxes and regulations.
Fact, in fact.
If there was no state welfare, the tax burden would be much lower. Businesses would be more able to start and thrive, boosting employment.
Facts.
Your response shows that you are completely unwilling to consider societal change.
Presumably, the only reason you are so resistant is because the ideas come from a fundamentalist, because you've got nothing born of reason.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ok, let's see how you fare in that regard - I will number the declarations in your post:
town said:
amazing :dizzy:
11 "declarations without supportive tissue"
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
well, no
if this was true, then we wouldn't have this:
town said:
sorry, you have to correct your faulty premise before you can build on it