Was Lazarus A 'Bum'?

[ok doser]

Thats just it, who gets to define legitimate need?

why, the libs do, as long as they're spending other people's money

 

[Town Heretic]

Sure they are, or tax money wouldnt be spent on things like tranny surgery and hormones for lifers in a mans prison to make them more feminine.

Everyone has something their tax dollars are spent on that they find objectionable. That's why a while back I noted the Amish.

What I'm speaking to are programs that feed and house those who cannot feed and house themselves.

Thats just it, who gets to define legitimate need?

We the people, through our duly elected representatives. But if someone wants to dispute the need for shelter and food I think we should debate the need for a commitment hearing next.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Everyone has something their tax dollars are spent on that they find objectionable. That's why a while back I noted the Amish.

What I'm speaking to are programs that feed and house those who cannot feed and house themselves.

We the people, through our duly elected representatives. But if someone wants to dispute the need for shelter and food I think we should debate the need for a commitment hearing next.

Seems like you are moving the goalposts to me since no one has objected to those who have real needs being given help.

I would argue though about a drunk/addict who cannot house themselves because they refuse to stay clean and prefer to live on the street rather than be held to anyones guidelines for help.

Think i need to be committed now?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Is OP trying to make the case that we should support the government welfare state because there is a beggar in the Bible?

What a stupid notion.

Rather more a case of drawing a comparison between the callous indifference of the rich man in the story to that of several on the hard right to those out of work or down on their luck etc.

For a start, begging is work — and characterized as such in scripture.

So a homeless person asking for spare change is 'working'?

Moreover, the rich man is criticized because he did not act out of charity, not because he did not endorse state interference.

What exactly is charitable about the attitudes of those who would do away with a system where without it the poverty rate would skyrocket? Some of you lot don't even think people should be entitled to water for Pete's sake.

Government welfare is not work; it is stealing from the rich and providing a disincentive to work. It is demonstrably inefficient and destructive.

Nobody said it was 'work' and your latter is just the same arrogant nonsense in want of support.

Our resident "scholar" has nothing. Again.

If you're talking about yourself then good call, otherwise...

:idunno:

 

[ok doser]

Rather more a case of drawing a comparison between the callous indifference of the rich man...

scripture doesn't state that the rich man was callously indifferent

 

[Crucible]

If the government did not step in and provide programs for those at risk for homelessness, none of you and your damn 'free will' would scratch a penny. That is fact why you are upset about it in the first place- everyone who takes issue with these taxes going to the poor on here has a horrible attitude toward the homeless. I've seen it from the whole pack of them at one point or another.

If you're going to get mad over the government taking your money, get mad at the things that actually impact your livelihood which serve no good purpose. There's people on welfare who work harder than Mr. American Dream down the street in his rancher and three kids.

The world is not fair, and you're just going to have to get used to that :wave2:

 

[glassjester]

i wonder if it's beyonce? :chuckle:

Oh snap.

 

[Town Heretic]

Seems like you are moving the goalposts to me since no one has objected to those who have real needs being given help.

You must have missed a few posts then. I'm objecting to those who believe (and a few have been clear enough) that welfare isn't a legitimate interest of the state and that attempting it with tax dollars is tantamount to thievery.

I would argue though about a drunk/addict who cannot house themselves because they refuse to stay clean and prefer to live on the street rather than be held to anyones guidelines for help

I'd say people with that sickness are in need of compassion and assistance in more, not fewer, ways.

Think i need to be committed now?

Not unless you're among the group I'm speaking to, which would surprise me.

Oh snap.

I thought it was only a matter of time before you might.

 

[glassjester]

I thought it was only a matter of time before you might.

Yep, finally happened.
It was a choice, though.

 

[Stripe]

I don't think anyone is confused on the point.

No thanks to your efforts to conflate the two.

Charity is not forced.

Government welfare is not an expression of the charity of a taxpayer.

Then money given to assist those in legitimate need shouldn't give them pause. I doubt anyone is completely satisfied with how their tax dollars are spent, but I'm speaking to this one, not everything else you feel like piling atop it to obscure the point.

Charity is not achieved through the welfare state.

Welfare does bring pause, because it is destructive and breeds resentment.

How about you pretend to make a point worth it.

See, that's not doing it. Neither is that. Not that one either.

That's literally your methodology, declaration without supportive tissue.

Nope. When I make an assertion I am willing and able to explain my position.

However, when your response is: Nuh-uh, I see no need to do so.

You're obviously not interested in the discussion.

I'm fine with people reading through. And this is you talking about anything but the actual point, which tends to eat up a lot of your time in posting.

That's a lot of assumption. The weakness of it is easy enough to illustrate: "It is demonstrably harmful and destructive for a government to force people to obey the law by threat of prison."

:AMR:

What? Nobody said that.

Or, a consequence for failing to do what we ought to do, before we even get to professing a willingness to do, is a consequence that should only be feared or resented by those who don't mean to actually do it.

Nope.

Sorry. Reality just doesn't match up with your dreamtime.

Now write something that isn't particularly helpful.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Stripe]

Rather more a case of drawing a comparison between the callous indifference of the rich man in the story to that of several on the hard right to those out of work or down on their luck etc.

Names.

Name someone who would not consider meeting a need of he saw it.

One name.

And if you're going to conflate charity and welfare, name someone who refuses to pay their tax.

Give us a name, or quit making false accusations.

So a homeless person asking for spare change is 'working'?

Yes.

What exactly is charitable about the attitudes of those who would do away with a system where without it the poverty rate would skyrocket? Some of you lot don't even think people should be entitled to water for Pete's sake.

All of those people who still pay their taxes even though it gets wasted?

You have an agenda and are not willing to consider opposing ideas.

Your story is that the government has to give money to poor people or else evil right-wingers will never do anything charitable.

The truth is that welfare is inefficient, wasteful and breeds resentment. Charity comes from those who see a need and meet it; not by government decree.



Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Stripe]

Because you're so keen for people to review what you say, here it is:

Government welfare — which is not an individual's charity — is not work; it is stealing from the taxpayer and providing a disincentive to work. It is demonstrably inefficient and destructive.

Complete nonsense. So you're right back in your wheelhouse.

So we have a coherent idea that you disagree with, but instead of addressing it sensibly, perhaps by asking me to explain my position more, you call me an idiot.

Nope.

When there is need in society, charity is efficient and real when a man sees it and meets it. The government taking money at threat of force to dole it out based on qualification — not need — is a completely different scenario. It involves hiring scores of people, writing lengthy regulations and scrutinizing people to make sure they qualify.

Welfare is not charity.

Your position is founded upon conflating the two concepts.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[ok doser]

stripe coherently states the obvious:

Government welfare is not work; it is stealing from the taxpayer and providing a disincentive to work. It is demonstrably inefficient and destructive.

town's brilliant response?

...Complete nonsense....

stripe responds:

So we have a coherent idea that you disagree with, but instead of addressing it sensibly, perhaps by asking me to explain my position more, you call me an idiot.

and didja notice exactly how he did it?

by using:

Spoiler

... declaration without supportive tissue. ...

Spoiler

BAM!

Right on your pants!

:mock:town

 

[Stripe]

It'd be nice if just once a Darwinist could front up with a rational argument.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

Because you're so keen for people to review what you say, here it is:

I'm "keen" for people to read what I've said on the topic. You're "keen" to cherry pick a sentence without broader context and place it out of order to attempt a distortion that makes you look good, which is a bit sad.

So we have a coherent idea that you disagree with, but instead of addressing it sensibly, perhaps by asking me to explain my position more, you call me an idiot.

Except that the sentence you use to mischaracterize me didn't do that and isn't the answer to the sentence you actually posted before it. Now here's what the truth looked like:

Government welfare is not work; it is stealing from the rich and providing a disincentive to work

Caring for our neighbors in need is a public virtue. The exercise of our collective will is both noble and good where that will serves those who are not in a position to help themselves and anyone callous enough to believe the disabled, children, and the elderly who constitute the lion's share of that national charity, along with others who for legitimate reasons can't fend for themselves in a moment, anyone who believes those people or the nation that responds to them are thieves and the collective largess of a nation is thievery? Those people have a heart condition that isn't covered by health insurance and are only exhibiting signs of their own disability, which I suppose means the thing to do is be charitable as we can be without allowing them to harm others.

The sentence you used from me actually followed this:

It is demonstrably inefficient and destructive.

Complete nonsense. So you're right back in your wheelhouse.

That wheelhouse was declaration absent any particular support.

Speaking of substance, here goes your meat and potatoes form of rebuttal:

Nope.

Followed by the declarative:

When there is need in society, charity is efficient and real when a man sees it and meets it.

Rather, government can present the most efficient means to meet a serious problem of larger need by virtue of its ability to organize and present resources. That's why we don't cross our fingers and hope enough people figure out what to do on the heels of a natural disaster.

The government taking money at threat of force to dole it out based on qualification — not need — is a completely different scenario.

Except, of course, government aid is predicated on qualification by need and the "threat of force" I've answered prior. Stripe thinks that slathering the ominous on it will stir outrage, but he already tried it a bit earlier. Only instead of "threat of force" he used imprisonment. Here's how that went:

It is demonstrably harmful and destructive for a government to force charity out of people at the threat of prison.

That's a lot of assumption. The weakness of it is easy enough to illustrate: "It is demonstrably harmful and destructive for a government to force people to obey the law by threat of prison." Or, a consequence for failing to do what we ought to do, before we even get to professing a willingness to do, is a consequence that should only be feared or resented by those who don't mean to actually do it.

It involves hiring scores of people, writing lengthy regulations and scrutinizing people to make sure they qualify.

Yes, you can't just hand out money and hope for the best.

Welfare is not charity.

It is public charity, where the state does what Stripe would leave to the individual and does it better.

 

[ok doser]

Except that the sentence you use to mischaracterize me isn't the answer to the sentence you post before it.

ya know, just an idea here, but.....


maybe if you could actually absorb what someone's saying and respond to it as a whole....

**** like normal people do in a conversation ****

...you wouldn't have all this trouble




of course, it would be harder for you to excerpt gems for your shrine to yourself, so i don't see it happening


still, one can hope

 

[ok doser]

(welfare) is public charity, where the state... does it better.

nice "declaration without supportive tissue" :chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

I see my old stalker doser is trying to bury an honest response to Stripe under what it's safe to assume is the sort of distortion and declaration I just finished directly addressing rebutting Stripe's effort.

Well, if that's the sum of the approach all I can say is see post 315 for a bit of clarity.

 

[ok doser]

I see ... doser ...

still struggling with the concept of ignore, eh? :chuckle:


oh well, maybe someday you'll figger it out :wave2:

 

[ok doser]

... trying to bury ...(my) response ...

i suspect stripe will manage to find your precious gem, even if he does have to dig for it

i also suspect he won't need your assistance




always wondered about this with you - if person A posts in a thread after person B has responded to you, do you get all confused and find it difficult to find person B's post to you?

'cause most people here don't seem to have that problem :idunno: