quote:

Originally posted by Vivid Boy oh man this is getting good. too bad i got to readthis damn flamewar with a thesaraus and a dictionary. for fuck sakes lets dumb it down. make a momma joke or something

Hey Eric, I didn't know the squeegee kids had internet these days. Where are you working today, St. Jamestown?

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Hey Eric, I didn't know the squeegee kids had internet these days. Where are you working today, St. Jamestown?

nah actually i got contracted by ur mother squeeging cumshots off her teeth

oh shit

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree Sorry I wasn't clear enough for you. The free-market ECONOMIC system is protected by our government (through its legislative/judicial system). And I was simply connecting this protection/security to a definition of justice which involves sympathy.

You're connecting two things which have no connection whatsoever. In a free market, the government exists for security ONLY - to protect against external threats and to protect the individual's right to private property.

It is in a SOCIALIST system where government policy is based on "sympathy", NOT a free market. Sympathy as a policy is anti-free-market and detrimental to an economy in general because it treats ambition and success with malice while rewarding failure. Sympathy is wasted in the context of national policy because when you raise things above the individual case to a statistical level (which is what you are doing), then you are subsidizing failure and punishing success, which inevitably results in more failure and less success. The best we can do as a society, both economically AND MORALLY, is empower people to become self-sufficient by allowing them to make their own life choices and keep the fruits of their labour. If some people "slip through the cracks", so be it - we can feel sorry for them, but we can not fix their broken lives.

quote:

One more thought: GOOD = help people live; BAD = let people die.

On an individual level, yes. On a societal level, it is wrong and immoral for one man to dictate how and to what extent another man should care for the needy. That is anti-freedom and certainly not "justice".

On the individual level, think of it this way: neither you nor I can afford to provide for every homeless person we see. How "GOOD" would it be to pick and choose based on some shallow criteria (like how pathetic they look) which ones we should help? Perhaps it would be better to treat them all equally - if one is inclined to help, then they can give to a private charity which will do what it can.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Last edited by DigiNut on Nov-08-2005 at 23:52

I guess my take on the situation, in general, is that people need to accept responsibility for their actions.

i.e. those who choose to be homeless ("I don't like my parents rules") or choose to reject help (for whatever reason)...fine, let them be. Who are we to force help on anyone. Btw., not doing anything to help yourself (while still able to do so) is as much a choice as any other...inaction IS a choice.

mental and physical illness or disability is another issue altogether though...and I think that ought to be a mitigating factor in many cases.

we rehab drug addicts who have made a conscious choice (in most cases) to do drugs...hell, we rehab criminals who have made conscious choices to break the law...so can we not allocate similar resources the homeless who are mentally ill and maybe just need a hand-up?

DigiNut (and anyone else who's said it) is quite right...WHY someone is homeless is key to whether or not society, as a whole, should give a shit (IMHO, anyway).

quote:

Originally posted by Vivid Boy nah actually i got contracted by ur mother squeeging cumshots off her teeth

Hey that's great buddy, you're moving up in the world! I'm sure it's only a matter of time now before you can afford to buy a different toothbrush for your mouth and your ass.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut You're connecting two things which have no connection whatsoever.

They're connected because the Canadian system isn't a free-market economy (I thought both you and Moral would have understood that when I said the system here wasn't "pure but you know what I mean"). I'm mixing the two because in reality, there is a mix. The North American and E.U. systems wouldn't work without that mix. Moral thinks they would. Impossible because of our human nature. Would you like me to repeat that again in case you continue to misunderstand me?

Your argument is about theoretical principles. I take it that tiered income tax classifies as your "malice" against ambition and success. That is a very narrow-minded approach.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut when you raise things above the individual case to a statistical level (which is what you are doing), then you are subsidizing failure and punishing success, which inevitably results in more failure and less success.

I don't see how our economy has shrunk at all...it continues to grow (i.e. become more successful) as standards of living improve and the unemployment rate goes down (i.e. less failure). Spending money on housing/employment programs and training for the jobless/homeless does help (at the cost of the general public). The benefit here is not necessarily ROI but intangibles such as the reduction in unemployment (that number doesn't physically help anyone but it makes us FEEL better), and basically, taking care of that feeling of sympathy.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut On an individual level, yes. On a societal level, it is wrong and immoral for one man to dictate how and to what extent another man should care for the needy. That is anti-freedom and certainly not "justice".

I don't understand you here...how is one man dictacting how another man cares for the needy? Our GOVERNMENT through the PM and Parliament decide what type of tax relief and funding for domestic and international charities we have. Is that considered anti-freedom and unjust?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Perhaps it would be better to treat them all equally - if one is inclined to help, then they can give to a private charity which will do what it can.

I agree 100%. However, the resulting benefit is the same: you will feel better by donating to a charity where you will not see the immediate benefit (as I do) or you can donate on a daily basis to see someone smile in front of you and thank you. Either way, you are doing it to "help" because you have sympathy. And like I said before, this sympathy is embedded into our socio-politico-economic system.

I get so sick of all the people looking for hand-outs
I like chinamon's idea

quote:

Originally posted by Floorwhore Well i guess i could hold on to my loonie next time, so he's forced to do something more drastic to survive like say.... get a hold of a gun, hold it to my head at the intersection instead of a squeegy to my windshield, and rob me of my possessions!!?? Or blow my brains out. He doesn't really have anything to lose does he? I'll keep feeding the loonies to the squeegy kids. Keeps my windshield bird shit free, and the kids from snapping out and doing something violent.

This is the dumbest post I've read in a while.

quote:

Originally posted by tom-e-techs I get so sick of all the people looking for hand-outs I like chinamon's idea

damn right!

spitty i agree with u on the mental state of a lot of the homeless people in our city. I volunteered with this orgainzation called out of the cold one winter a couple times. U drive around in a van with a couple other ppl handing out warm soup, warm drinks, clothing, really whatever they could provide for these ppl. We went all over the city, and even down under random bridges where some people lived. THe mental state a good majority of these people were in was out of this world! i sympathized with a lot of these people, even though they were a little rough on the edges and a little scary. I think if more people volunteer with organizations like this it can help. It was definetly an eye opener for me, and if you havent tried anything like this before, i would recommened it