Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Too funny... "US society" doesn't donate enough to the Red Cross to take care of everyone who might be displaced in a natural disaster either, that's why we have FEMA.
Natural disaster, NOT having children one cannot afford to support and raise and failing to provide for oneself and one's dependents. BIG difference.
When people who continue to say such things, they demonstrate their inability to construct a real argument to support their claims so they resort to logical fallacies and rhetorical questions. Or perhaps stated more succinctly, it's an attempt to change the subject and avoid of the issue at hand
I can see the basic human decency is completely lost in you.
People can and do elect to do things through government that they could do other ways. It may well be to insure that they provide for themselves rather than be dependent on charity from the citizenry or the government. Social Security would be an example. This seems quite in keeping with the way in which the collective chooses to do things.
There are many required tasks for the society where various groups would choose to not participate if not required. Defense, Educating, Law Enforcement all would be obvious examples. But it could well extend to such practical things as roads, sewers and street lights.
So the citizenry makes a joint decision as to what will be compulsory. Neither bad nor good. But it is the will of the people. And yes compliance is forced as it is in any workable society.
1. Using violence against other lawful and peaceful people and confiscate their property is never right. It is immoral, unjust and unfair.
2. Forcing other people to pay for my needs is some extreme selfishness.
I already explained it, that the majority of the population would just spend the no longer taxed money on themselves, because most people are selfish and short sighted
Why shouldn't that be their own choice? It's the money THEY earned. The poor spend all their money on themselves. That's selfish. Why is it OK for some to be selfish but not others?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
Once again, it doesn't make your vile, selfish and greedy attempt in way decent, moral, just or fair.
It still takes a vicious human garbage to support your notion.
You remind me of I Am Legend (the book, not the movie). You are like Dr Neville, but everyone else is a vampire. So Neville during the day kills vampires.
BUT, eventually, learns that their are two races of the vampires, one that was infected after already dead, and another, infected while still alive. This race that became vampires while alive has found ways to suppress most of the infection symptoms and have adapted tolerance to daylight. They are now the dominant race, and to them, Neville is a murderer, since he didn't discriminate in the vampires he killed.
Neville is eventually captured, tried and sentenced to death, but one of the "alive" vampires gives him poison pills so he can kill himself rather than be executed. And he realizes that he is now the bad guy right before he dies.
So in conclusion (and why I brought this book up), if you have your ideals, but everyone else in society has a different ideal, are they all wrong, or are maybe you wrong?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Why shouldn't that be their own choice? It's the money THEY earned. The poor spend all their money on themselves. That's selfish. Why is it OK for some to be selfish but not others?
If you can't see the difference, then what's the point of having a discussion?
If you can't see the difference, then what's the point of having a discussion?
There is no difference. You're saying it's OK for some but not others to be selfish and spend all their money on themselves. That's the epitome of hypocrisy.
It is not. To deny required services to the needy is immoral, unjust and unfair.
All societies use violence and confiscate the property of some to aid the common good.
If you can't deal with it you simply have no place in any organized country.
For the third time, nobody argued for not helping the poor!
Many other ways we can help the poor. As simply as you can volunteer your own money to help the poor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
