The Maelstrom of Violence

[Kinser79]

(09-23-2017, 12:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Kinser

I’m not into striped posts.

Then by all means post long form. I'm fine either way, but stripes are more my style so get used to it.

 

Quote:I really shouldn’t break into other’s people’s striped exchanges.

Then don't. I find that if two other people are having an A to B conversation it is prudent for me to C my way out of the area. It saves a lot of headaches.

Quote: Pbrower is doing fine his own way.

I that is true then we should hear less bitching from his end, or at least the standard blue "Trump is Hitler, ZOMG" bullshit. Yet PBR is known to whine about the most asinine of things. Seriously we're talking about a 60 something year old man who STILL whines to this day about his parents, both of whom are now dead and have been for some time.

Now, I know that I'm pretty low on the empathy here, but even you have to admit that there comes a point in time when an adult can no longer blame his parents for his problems. For most people that age is around 20 years old. I'm willing to be generious and say that if one is under 25 then you can blame your parents as a lot of people these days go to college, and well college is little more than a glorified high school. (Yes, I've been there. I dropped out to join the military because I knew I would hate it after a just a few semesters.)

Quote:But you have called his councilor unqualified,

The fact that his councilor is titled "councilor" indicates that he is not a psychologist and thus not qualified to diagnose anything. Ergo he is unqualified and PBR taking the at best educated guess of a somewhat astute amateur would be just the same as me taking medical advice as to my own health from the local veterinarian.

Quote: himself a liar-predator,

I've caught him in lies and he is a predator. Unlike many stereotypical predators he uses pity rather than violence or psychological manipulation as his weapon of choice.

Quote:and maligned the motives of politicians.

Really? Who? Where? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the eating results in controllable voting blocks that are kept at a minimal level of comfort on the verge of absolute destitution save they continue to elect their political masters then it becomes self-evident that even if the intent of the policy in question was morally positive the RESULT (which is what really matters) is morally negative.

In the case of welfare and entitlements we are far removed from when they were instated, and the politicians who created these programs are long out of office and in many cases long dead.

 

Quote:To a great degree, you have done so without real evidence.  For the most part, you are running off stereotypes that come from your world view.  Rather than listen to the person who is at the center of the discussion, you assert your stereotypes as fact.  Your stereotypes become true because you assert them to be?

Great, we have another who can't come up with an original argument. Back to your papal bull meme again. When it comes to my view of PBR it is formed off of his statements and his actions. Is my interpretation of those statements and actions influenced by my world view? Yes, but whose isn't? Certainly not yours.

Quote:Well, I can’t tell you not to say bad things about politician motivations.

Technically you could, I'm just unlikely to listen though.

Quote: I suspect part of it was to attract voters who would benefit from welfare.

If you can suspect that, then how far is it to also suspect that once implemented you find yourself with a permanent underclass that votes reliably for the party that says they will increase their welfare payouts? It isn't hard to understand that politicians are motivated by gaining votes for whatever office they are running for. It isn't hard to understand that welfare recipients, regardless of color, want increases in their welfare benefits. The latter is a simple matter of economic self-interest.

Quote: I certainly won’t claim welfare as implemented today is ideal.

I find that any program or policy directed by humans is usually far from ideal. Our species is fallible.

 

Quote:Some need a short period of help to get back in the game.  Some are fully and permanently disabled.  They can’t and won’t ever be in the game again.  With the latter sort of exception, welfare shouldn’t be a predator centered permanent way of life.  There is a definite difference between welfare providing a safety net, and a dole allowing lazy predators to live off others.  If I could make it so, promote the former, end the latter, I would.

In the former there is private and religious charity and social fraternaties as there were in the 19th century. In the latter there is of course the family. After all, it is usually considered unconscionable to allow one's parents or children and so on starve.

Welfare as directed by the state must be a parasitic relationship though. Why? Because it is paid for by taking wealth from those who produce, by force (cause if you don't pay your taxes men with guns and blue uniforms show up and cart you off to a jail), and is given to those who do not. As for those currently on the dole I would say that a large number of them are parasites living at the expense of the body politic, and furthermore have every reason to do so because a welfare mother with 3 children in section 8 housing and on SNAP would have to make around 68K/year to maintain the lifestyle that is provided by welfare. Generally speaking such persons have neither the skills nor the resources to make that happen, otherwise they would.

Now, if you're done making an ass of yourself Bob I need to make other posts.