What is the justification for forcing anyone to financially provide for anyone else?

[manifold]

What is the justification for forcing anyone to financially provide for anyone else?

It makes liberals feel smug and superior.

But of course you know they're inferior so I guess it's a wash.

 

[Samson]

The income most people earn wouldn't be possible without the supporting infrastructure, including the government. The idea that one owes nothing in return is not only selfish, it's completely illogical.

Now if you want to discuss HOW MUCH one owes in return and/or WHERE it get's allocated, that is a different debate altogether.

The portion I bolded is a legitimate function of government, because all citizens benefit equally, due to equal access.

What is "completely illogical," and of course typical of mani-retard who couldn't follow a thread if his life depended on it, is equating "infrastructure" with "providing for anyone else."

 

[daveman]

What is the justification for forcing anyone to financially provide for anyone else?

It makes liberals feel smug and superior.

But of course you know they're inferior so I guess it's a wash.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying emotion is the sole driver for many liberals. By supporting the government's wealth redistribution from the producers to the non-producers, they feel good about themselves without actually having to do anything.

"I am a Democrat because I believe in helping those in need. All of us, you and I, have an obligation to those less fortunate. You go first, okay? I'm a little short this week."

 

[manifold]

So you don't think being driven solely by their emotions makes them inferior?

 

[lizzie]

So you don't think being driven solely by their emotions makes them inferior?

It doesn't make them inferior, just less practical, thus inclined to action that doesn't work long term.

 

[Samson]

So you don't think being driven solely by their emotions makes them inferior?

It doesn't make them inferior, just less practical, thus inclined to action that doesn't work long term.

Actually having to ask, "So you don't think being driven solely by their emotions makes them inferior?" makes mani-tard inferior.

What a fuckin' idiot he is.

 

[manifold]

So you don't think being driven solely by their emotions makes them inferior?

It doesn't make them inferior, just less practical, thus inclined to action that doesn't work long term.

Isn't that the definition of inferior?

 

[lizzie]

So you don't think being driven solely by their emotions makes them inferior?

It doesn't make them inferior, just less practical, thus inclined to action that doesn't work long term.

Actually having to ask, "So you don't think being driven solely by their emotions makes them inferior?" makes mani-tard inferior.

What a fuckin' idiot he is.

Not inferior in the world of emotion, but in the real world, yes. They would be unable to survive long-term in a world dictated by Mother Nature.

 

[lizzie]

So you don't think being driven solely by their emotions makes them inferior?

It doesn't make them inferior, just less practical, thus inclined to action that doesn't work long term.

Isn't that the definition of inferior?

In nature, yes. That's the definition of inferior. We live in a world where we attempt to defy nature and live outside her limitations. We are successful to a certain degree, but nature always wins out eventually.

 

[manifold]

It doesn't make them inferior, just less practical, thus inclined to action that doesn't work long term.

Isn't that the definition of inferior?

In nature, yes. That's the definition of inferior. We live in a world where we attempt to defy nature and live outside her limitations. We are successful to a certain degree, but nature always wins out eventually.

So basically, Daveman's lack of balls to admit it notwithstanding, he firmly believes that liberals are inferior.

Thanks for helping me make that clear.

 

[dilloduck]

It doesn't make them inferior, just less practical, thus inclined to action that doesn't work long term.

Isn't that the definition of inferior?

In nature, yes. That's the definition of inferior. We live in a world where we attempt to defy nature and live outside her limitations. We are successful to a certain degree, but nature always wins out eventually.

Interesting---defying nature as a justification for taking from the haves and giving it to the have nots. I agree--nature will win. Isn't defying nature the justification for science too ?

 

[daveman]

So you don't think being driven solely by their emotions makes them inferior?

No, it makes them untrustworthy for decisions that require facts and logic.

 

[daveman]

Isn't that the definition of inferior?

In nature, yes. That's the definition of inferior. We live in a world where we attempt to defy nature and live outside her limitations. We are successful to a certain degree, but nature always wins out eventually.

So basically, Daveman's lack of balls to admit it notwithstanding, he firmly believes that liberals are inferior.

Thanks for helping me make that clear.

If you're going to have both sides of our conversation, let me know, and I'll leave you to it.

Emotional people are good at lots of things: The arts, writing, entertainment. Not so good at other things, like economics or foreign policy.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Glenn Beck would get a kick out of this thread.

 

[lizzie]

Glenn Beck would get a kick out of this thread.

I dunno- I think it might cause some inner conflict for him.

 

[lizzie]

Isn't that the definition of inferior?

In nature, yes. That's the definition of inferior. We live in a world where we attempt to defy nature and live outside her limitations. We are successful to a certain degree, but nature always wins out eventually.

Interesting---defying nature as a justification for taking from the haves and giving it to the have nots. I agree--nature will win. Isn't defying nature the justification for science too ?

Yes it is, and it's a double-edged sword. Science has provided us with the ability to feed and care for huge numbers of people, and medicine has enabled us to extend the natural life span and keep people alive who would never have survived prior to scientific advances. Now that we have this ability, it's my thought that we should wisen up a little and stop breeding like rabbits and using up natural resources at the astounding rate we currently do. We have created the idea that everyone has a right to have all their needs met simply by the fact that they were born. Personally, I have no problem with having as many children as you want, as long as you solely take the responsibility for their upbringing and meeting their needs.

 

[MikeK]

Are we as a country legislating morality because people are naturally too selfish to voluntarily help each other ?

"Justification?" As in what? Alimony? Child support? Social programs?

Anything. What is the justification for taxing me and using that money to spend on anyone else ?
Why am I forced to provide for those who are deemed unable to provide for themselves ?

Because you've had the gross misfortune to be born in America rather than in some third world country where you would be permitted to kick the poor to the side of the road to die and rot. That is presuming you would not be among the poor.

 

[Jon]

What is the justification for forcing anyone to financially provide for anyone else?

It makes liberals feel smug and superior.

Actually, it doesn't. It just gets them re-elected. There's one group that caters to the rich (Republicans), and one group that caters to the poor (Democrats). There is no party that caters to working class Americans, which make up the majority of this country. The rich already have money, and the Republicans allow them to keep it. The poor don't have money, but the Democrats give it to them for free. We working class however don't have money, but we work to generate enough to survive. No one, and I repeat, no one, in this current government is working to make it easier on us.

Instead of forming such a party, most of us allow ourself to be sucked into the mind games of the other two parties. Wake up, and maybe someday we can rectify the inequalities that cater to the ends of the spectrum.

 

[dilloduck]

"Justification?" As in what? Alimony? Child support? Social programs?

Anything. What is the justification for taxing me and using that money to spend on anyone else ?
Why am I forced to provide for those who are deemed unable to provide for themselves ?

Because you've had the gross misfortune to be born in America rather than in some third world country where you would be permitted to kick the poor to the side of the road to die and rot. That is presuming you would not be among the poor.

Gotcha----it's a good vs bad thingy. You are good if you allow the government to steal your money if they use it to keep people alive and well. Sorta like religion except they believe you get rewarded for caring for other people voluntarily.How did we get all these people who are unable to take care of themselves ?


( you do understand that even the rich die and rot don't you )

 

[007]

Anything. What is the justification for taxing me and using that money to spend on anyone else ?
Why am I forced to provide for those who are deemed unable to provide for themselves ?

Because you've had the gross misfortune to be born in America rather than in some third world country where you would be permitted to kick the poor to the side of the road to die and rot. That is presuming you would not be among the poor.

Gotcha----it's a good vs bad thingy. You are good if you allow the government to steal your money if they use it to keep people alive and well. Sorta like religion except they believe you get rewarded for caring for other people voluntarily. How did we get all these people who are unable to take care of themselves ?


( you do understand that even the rich die and rot don't you )

Well my guess would be any social programs where the government is doling out money for nothing. They created a segment of the population that would rather sit on their ass and bleed the system than work at their own personal gain through achievement.