OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
You freely admit that you don't care about people that you don't know personally? Good. It's nice to see that you're demonstrating just why you're a social parasite.

Oh - so someone who works 60 hours a week, takes good care of his family, looks after his friends, and volunteers to help people in his neighborhood find jobs, become literate, etc, is "a social parasite" because they don't care about the billions of people they don't personally know?

I'm not sure if you really are living in a world so out of touch with reality, or if it's just your venom for Norfleet getting the better of your common sense.

(And no - I'm not saying Norfleet is any of those things I said. But I know people who are like that; all they care about is their family and friends, and maybe some of them try to make a difference in their neighborhood. They for damn sure ain't parasites, social or otherwise.)

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Oh - so someone who works 60 hours a week, takes good care of his family, looks after his friends, and volunteers to help people in his neighborhood find jobs, become literate, etc, is "a social parasite" because they don't care about the billions of people they don't personally know?

I have a very old and dear friend who fits this description quite closely. And he's not even remotely a "social parasite". He also shares many other of the same beliefs that Norfleet has. We occasionally have some ... interesting debates. But he's a fine human being, a helluva lot better one than many so-called 'good' Christians that I know.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Arryn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LintMan:
Norfleet, are you a R.A. Heinlein fan by any chance? If you haven't read any of his SF, you might want to check him out.

Speaking for myself, and not Norfy, I'm a big fan of the type of society expoused by RAH in Starship Troopers (the book, not the crappy movie). Citizen is a privilege, not a right, and must be earned. Citizenship has obligations.

EDIT: I also have almost all his books. Started reading him around 1966.

---

Which ... makes you a big Heinlein fan, I would say? Myself, I thought some of his books were great - Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land especially; others were enjoyable diVersions (Glory Road, Have Spacesuit, Will Travel, Starship Troopers), and others were okay, with some interesting good facets. Some very good short stories as well (The Interesting Case of Mr Johnathan Hoag or some such).

His concepts of citizenship, personal responsibility being more important than laws, etc, were always a refreshing ongoing refrain throughout his works.

Towards the end, though, I thought his work was ... tripe. Pushed out en masse to pay bills or provide for his kids, or simply the product of dementia - who knows?

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Towards the end, though, I thought his work was ... tripe. Pushed out en masse to pay bills or provide for his kids, or simply the product of dementia - who knows?

Same as Herbert. Anderson. Pohl. Bova. Niven. And Clarke. Clarke hasn't written anything but 'tripe' in years, but he keeps churning the ... stuff out. Even Haldeman's Last sequel to 'Forever Wars' was junk. Seems none of the old authors can write anymore. And yes, this includes McAffery and Bradley.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Why? This encourages people to become leeches.

If it actually encouraged people to become "leeches", as you've called them, then the majority of the industrialized world would be populated by these leeches. The reality of the situation is that the vast majority of people _want_ to make it by themselves, and would rather that other people don't support them too much.

The compassionate part of me has sympathy for the elderly and the unfortunate. But the rational side of me thinks: if these folks had been less inept and/or foolish they'd not be in a situation now where they need help from others.

A person can easily be in such a situation through no fault of their own. A person should be allowed to fail, but this failure shouldn't bring them down to the point where they can't maintain the most basic level of care for themselves.

Why should I reward the poor decisions they made in their lives? Example: if someone decides to have 8 children, and cannot afford to feed/clothe/care for more than 1, why must I (in the form of taxes) pay for their stupidity/irresponsibility?

Why isn't compassion for them reason enough?

If you smoke, and get cancer, why should I have to pay a share (in the form of higher insurance costs) for the tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars it'll cost to deal with your foolishness? If you eat like a pig all your life, blimp out, and then get heart disease or colon cancer, why must everyone else be burdened by you?

Everyone else is already burdened by these people, so moving it into a more visible place would probably be a good thing.

Sorry, but people need to be responsible for themselves.

And they still are responsible for themselves. They are not completely responsible for themselves, but no person ever can be.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
They are not completely responsible for themselves, but no person ever can be.

That's a piece of Roman Catholic dogma I don't happen to agree with. Citing it proves nothing at all, except that you've been tainted by the indoctrination of the Church, and can no longer be trusted to be objective on the subject.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Oh - so someone who works 60 hours a week, takes good care of his family, looks after his friends, and volunteers to help people in his neighborhood find jobs, become literate, etc, is "a social parasite" because they don't care about the billions of people they don't personally know?

Well, since this person clearly cares about people that he doesn't personally know, I'm not sure what your argument is. He obviously helps people he hasn't met before. Or would this person actually not care at all if a few billion people they haven't met yet suddenly died?

I'm not sure if you really are living in a world so out of touch with reality, or if it's just your venom for Norfleet getting the better of your common sense.

Yes, it is my personal venom for Norfleet coming through. He's continually claimed to be the kind of person who would be quite happy about the deaths of 4 or 5 billion people since it would make him better off.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Arryn:
That's a piece of Roman Catholic dogma I don't happen to agree with. Citing it proves nothing at all, except that you've been tainted by the indoctrination of the Church, and can no longer be trusted to be objective on the subject.

What on earth are you talking about? I've never even read catholic dogma, so I have no idea where you got this particular notion.

I stated that no person can ever be completely responsible for themselves because no person is responsible for every aspect of their lives. There are always other people involved who make decisions that will either negatively or positively affect themselves.

Is one of those 8 children you mentioned responsible for being born? No, they aren't. Is an employee who's job is outsourced responsible for this? Nope.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Norfleet:
That just means it's illegal to kill them. Not that I'm required to help them if they can't be bothered to help themselves and obviously seem to enjoy being poor, as they can't be bothered to make the effort to end this. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity: If you can't be bothered to do something about it, you deserve to be poor. Somebody's gotta be.

Indeed, this is how the animal world works. The unfitting die, the suited replicate. However, I assumed that you are a human and not an animal. Maybe I was wrong here.

---

You were Primz. Norfleet is not a real "human", from believes and intellectual points of view. One only need to read few dozens of his Posts to reilize this sad fact. Fortunately for the rest of us, his ideas and dilusions are only shared by few similar nutcase individuals, and have no influence on the outside world. Just ignore him and his nonsense, he is always trolling for the attention.

[ July 28, 2004, 22:40: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arryn:
What humans deserve is "the chance for a better life", not the better life itself. The latter should be earned.

And it still would be. Providing a hard bottom that people cannot fall below that allows them to avoid starving and suffering from poor health does not mean that they are experiencing a life of luxury.

---

When there are people, who are capable of working, who _refuse_ to work even when offered a job - let them starve.

I'm all for there being more jobs for people. I think that, for instance, jobless people could be put to work cleaning streets and vacant lots, doing manual labor in our municipal, state, and national parks. Doing things that the country would benefit from, at least at the local level.

Others could be paid for cooking food for the others working, or for doing laundry for them, or watching over the others kids. The ones who did good work, who showed responsibility, could be promoted to better positions.

But frankly - in this country there are a bunch of people who don't think they should _have_ to work. People with "Will Work for Food" signs - who spit and curse at you if you offer them some work.

Again - let 'em starve. If they get hungry enough, maybe they'll do some work.

I never said that society owes you success. I said that society owes you protection from starving to death and abject poverty.

Lots of people who have been homeless and jobless can tell you that it's not hard to avoid starvation in this country. Soup kitchens, church Groups giving out food - even scavenging behind restaurants.

Starvation isn't much of an issue in the USA, at least not in urban areas.

I can never understand why basic medical care isn't considered to be something that society should pay for. After all, people don't seem to have a problem with the sewer system being paid for by taxes, and that's the single most important part of your health care. After all, you as an individual wouldn't be hurt by dumping your own personal sewage into the river.

Again - what world are you living in? The sewage in the river would hurt _everyone_.

quote:

---

If humans have an innate right to be taken care of by our society, then why must we pay for rent, food, or anything else we might want in our ordained right to happiness?

You would pay for them because you want better than the bare minimum.

---

[/quote]

Who determines the bare minimum? The people who chose to live at the bare minimum? What happens when someone says, "It isn't right - they have food and shelter, but it's inhumane that they don't have cable television, and can't eat at McDonald's every day."

If enough people decide that the bare minimum is enough - what then? Let's say 50% of the population (all the men) decide, hey screw it - they got a sofa, a TV to watch the game, and enough money for beer at $8.99 a case, that's good enough. What then? Oh, and _then_ they vote that their standard of living should be higher.

Like I said - it'd be real nice if government were helping to provide jobs, which it isn't anymore. Looking after those who can't look after themselves - instead of dumping people from insane asylums (thank you Reagan and Bush). Providing at least child health care, instead of subsidies for corporations.

But to say that government has to ensure that the people have an _adequate_ life when they could get off their lazy arses and work???