Was Lazarus A 'Bum'?

[Town Heretic]

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

That's what the rats in the maze think when they finally get the cheese.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope.

I already noted your propensity to use that in lieu of real and substantive rebuttal.

You're being daft.

That's not much better and no more factual.

There was a topic; you still haven't responded sensibly.

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.

Emergency response and welfare are very different.

And very similar, especially where they intersect with my actual point, which wasn't your above.

Welfare and charity are very different.

That's an interesting shift from:

Welfare is not charity.

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.

You can't be part of the discussion by insisting that they are the same thing and ignoring the ideas of those who disagree.

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]

Yes.

We know you won't.

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"...

Except you're now switching your accusation closer to something we do endorse.

This is the fallacy of moving the goalposts.

You endorse an upsurge in poverty? Well "kudos" for at least being honest enough to admit it. Please reserve your mantras for elsewhere though.

Because you say so?

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?

We have people in poverty today with welfare in place. We have fraud. We have a disinterested subculture whose greatest ambition is to qualify for another handout.

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 we would endorse had not been tried, or even thought about by the likes of you.

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.

You just pull out stupid examples like OP in an attempt to mock and make no effort to understand.

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.

I guess that's a be you have invented a story for so you can ignore it.

What? Be coherent will ya?

You're catching on. lain:

I was already up to speed. Please follow suit.

The simple fact of the matter is that dismantling a welfare system would lead to an exponential increase in wealth, so there's nothing worth considering.

I find the attitudes towards the poor from liberals to be contemptible.

Well thank you captain soundbite.

You're just flat out ignorant, or worse informed and simply don't care.

 

[Stripe]

You endorse an upsurge in poverty?

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.

No, because common sense says so.

Well, we have evidence. Under the system you endorse there is poverty, there is rampant dependency and there is resentment.

I also happen to work for a charity.

Good for you.

What have you got exactly besides ignorance and a boatload of pompous arrogance?

Facts.

Society certainly does so how much more poverty do you suppose would transpire when that welfare net is taken away?

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.

Charity can't cover all of those who fall through it

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.

and your judgmental attitude is nothing more than puffed up rhetoric.

I feel confident that with time and counseling, you'll get over yourself. :thumb:

That's a fact.

You've spent exactly no time considering how a welfare-free society might work and are ignoring the evidence against the welfare state.

What? Be coherent will ya?

:chuckle:

That's a mess, ain't it?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes.

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:

 

[Stripe]

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?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ss-wonder-middle-class-parents-mortified.html

 

[Stripe]

I already noted your propensity to use that in lieu of real and substantive rebuttal.That's not much better and no more factual.

Well, when you insist on pulling single words out of context there's every chance you'll miss the substance.

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.

I've said stuff before, therefore... something. :idunno:

Don't worry me and I'll forget you ever said something that sounded like anything.

I think we all know why you would prefer I stay silent.

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.COLOR=#333333]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.[/COLOR]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.

: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]

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 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.

Well, we have evidence. Under the system you endorse there is poverty, there is rampant dependency and there is resentment.

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.

Good for you.

Thanks.

Facts.

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.

The people who are dependent on the state would have to become self-dependent. :thumb:

Well several already are if you classify begging on the streets as "work" eh Stripe?

lain:

Businesses that struggle to start would not be so burdened by taxes and regulations.

Oh please, that's just pathetic.

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.

Yeah, they could make a career in begging if nothing else...

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.

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.

I feel confident that with time and counseling, you'll get over yourself. :thumb:

Whereas with you I don't have the same confidence. Still...

You've spent exactly no time considering how a welfare-free society might work and are ignoring the evidence against the welfare state.

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.

:chuckle:

That's a mess, ain't it?

It fit right into the morass sadly...

 

[Arthur Brain]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ss-wonder-middle-class-parents-mortified.html

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...

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, when you insist on pulling single words out of context there's every chance you'll miss the substance.

Another charge you won't sustain and one, again, set against your actual practice of manipulating text to alter more than appearance.

I've said stuff before, therefore... something.

Post 315. You've made accusations you can only sustain against your own practice.

I think we all know why you would prefer I stay silent.

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.

X and Y are very different is entirely compatible with X is not Y.

For example, 14 and 38 trillion are very different and...

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.

Here is what you will not respond sensibly to: Charity is not welfare.

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.

Charity is a man seeing a need and meeting it.

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.

Welfare is the state taking taxes without justification.

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.

 

[Crucible]

Welfare and charity are very different.

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]

the one who provides the majority of charity is the Catholic Church.
By a landslide lain:

Boomshakalaka! Up top! :cheers:

That's not me giving the Catholic Church ~accolades~

Aw...

 

[glassjester]

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.

Then any and every use of tax money is justified?

 

[Crucible]

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.

 

[Stripe]

Seriously? You're pointing to some fraud case in the "Daily Fail" as an argument?

: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.

You've already expressed that begging was a form of 'work' from a biblical perspective.

Given that you understand little from the Bible, I decided not to go with that example.

Another charge you won't sustain.

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:

Set against your actual practice of manipulating text to alter more than appearance.

:allsmile:

Post 315. You've made accusations you can only sustain against your own practice.

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.

I noted a shift.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Stripe]

All charity does is help with food and clothes.

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 barely, because in truth most of you just aren't charitable.

And you know this how?

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

Where are you getting this from?

The percentage of Christians who would endorse ending state welfare is tiny.

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:

Congratulations. :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

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.

Oh please, that's just pathetic.

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]

Nope.

You're being daft.

daft is one way of putting it

clinically obsessive is another way

 

[ok doser]

A declaration isn't an idea to respect. It's a bumper sticker.

ok, let's see how you fare in that regard - I will number the declarations in your post:

1. I already noted your propensity to use that in lieu of real and substantive rebuttal.

2. That's not much better and no more factual.

3. Your judgment isn't controlling and your evaluations are suspect (see: post 315).

4. 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.

5. It wasn't any more impressive or accurate then.

6. And very similar, especially where they intersect with my actual point, which wasn't your above.

7. We collectively elect people to stand in our place and speak for us.

8. When they spend our collective money on projects from defense to welfare, they do it in our name.

9. Welfare is, therefore, a public charity, a willful, intentional giving to those in need from a common purse.

10. 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.

11. Note that when I met your declaration "Welfare is not charity" I did quite a bit more in response.

amazing :dizzy:

11 "declarations without supportive tissue"

 

[ok doser]

We collectively elect people to stand in our place and speak for us.

well, no

if this was true, then we wouldn't have this:

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.

sorry, you have to correct your faulty premise before you can build on it