and you still don't seem to get the idea that they are no more wholly and individually responsible for the social stigma they suffer than you are for the social privilege enjoy.
geo.
So you emulate the writing of medieval texts without capitalization out of what... reverence? My guess is you're unemployed. Amirite?
that is not a 'privilege'. that is a delusion.The only privilege I enjoy is the knowledge that I am the master of my fate.
no, largely out of laziness... emulating Don Marquis' Archie, if anyone. capital letters have no intrinsic value. if they, or any aspect of writing do not contribute to the comprehensibility or the beauty or to any aspect of communication, i consider them optional. i do not follow rules just because they exist and someone told me to.
geo.
Ok. Just so you know, I don't find it difficult to read your posts without capitalization. It's just not my thing and is your thing.
that is not a 'privilege'. that is a delusion.
"one day".... heheh
geo.
They don't "cost" us that, they are working for a living and earning that wage. The welfare mother is doing nothing at all. Try again.
What if they bought the Xbox and big screen TV but lost their jobs which made them poor? Should they be forced to sell any basic entertainment item before being allowed to go to a soup kitchen for assistance?
They don't "cost" us that, they are working for a living and earning that wage. The welfare mother is doing nothing at all. Try again.
I will not complain about caps as long as they spell out the entire word.
"Any formal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always ready to defend their most precious possession - their ignorance."
— Hendrick Willem Van Loon
Why shouldn't they?
Safety net services are meant for people who are destitute.
Why shouldn't they?
Safety net services are meant for people who are destitute.
Honestly, that's a pretty short-sighted way to look at it.
Safety nets can also be very useful for helping keep people in the work-force for the long haul.
Let's talk disability. In a lot of cases, there's a pretty bit run-up to the point when someone becomes permanently disabled. Helping them for a short time at any point along that run-up can help prevent them from ever becoming permanently disabled.
I'd rather have someone go on welfare for 6 months and deal with their building problem than tough it out and have them wind up on welfare for the rest of their lives. It's not only the kind and decent thing to do, but it's fiscally advantageous. Putting the bar for public assistance at "about to die" is stupid.
Those are homeless shelters. Certain safety nets are designed to stop people from falling into the destitute mode thus providing greater likelihood of said individual rejoining the working force and once again contributing to society.
That sounds exactly like the people who support Michele Bachmann.
Walk a day in my shoes friend... then maybe. Until then... I have a favorite quote to end discussions like these that's very poignant to you and may help you out in future. Your defense has been substantial btw...
"Any formal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always ready to defend their most precious possession - their ignorance."
— Hendrick Willem Van Loon
None of that addresses the innumerable reasons why someone may have these "assets," which have been stated over and over again.
- The apartment came with most of them.
- They have a resale value of almost nothing.
- Many of them are either necessary to survival, or necessary for living and working in a developed nation.
Etc, etc, etc.
Not at all.
If you have many, illiquid, unnecessary assets that can be used to cover needs.
You should be willing to liquidate them, before asking others to pay for you.
If someone isn't willing to give up things, to keep themselves, how can they morally ask another to do so?
I have no problem with people addressing a medical issue, using safety net services.
Without having to give up significant assets.
I'm talking about the majority here, who are not expected to do so.
"About to die" is an embellishment, it's more "about to have no money to cover my needs."
Cable television is not necessary for life.
Xbox's are not either.
Asking people to give those up temporarily, to level themselves back out, is not a bad thing.
Cable television is not necessary for life.
Xbox's are not either.
Asking people to give those up temporarily, to level themselves back out, is not a bad thing.
What majority?
And what kind of money are you going to get for a non-flat screen TV, an original generation X-Box, and a VCR?
Just because someone has a TV doesn't mean it a 55" flatscreen. Just because someone has a videogame system doesn't mean it's a PS3 160Gb. DVD players NEW go for $20 these days. So you're not going to get **** for them if you try to sell them.
Basic cable came with one of the apartments I lived in - as did the rather large TV it was on (something I would never actually buy myself - I don't watch TV). Counter to what you're probably thinking, it was not a very posh apartment. In fact, the cheaper apartments are the ones that tend to have things like that.
Were I to sell it, my landlord would have charged me for it.
You act like getting maybe 30 bucks for your used Xbox is going to fix all their problems. So someone wants to be able to have a modicum of enjoyment in their lives. That means they deserve to be poor?
As mentioned earlier, "stuff" is a really poor measure of poverty. Services is a much more accurate way to measure it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?