Home | Community | Message Board


Phytoextractum
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineDemon
A Drug AgainstWar

Registered: 06/19/00
Posts: 457
Loc: j00/2 m07h3/2
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
Welfare
    #1313115 - 02/17/03 03:40 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

What do you all think about welfare? Should it be kept or abolished?
I think it should be be abolished. We have to have personal responsibility. Instead of giving more jobs to black people just because they are black, or to any other ethnic group just for the sake of assimilating, why not give more jobs to the homeless and poor? Food stamps.. I dunno about them. Maybe that's ok, but just paying people to live in the country and not do anything isn't right.


--------------------
"Sex is like a gun.. you aim, you shoot, you run" - Aerosmith

Come visit SacredShrooms.org!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEarth_Droid
Stranger
Registered: 04/19/02
Posts: 5,240
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Welfare [Re: Demon]
    #1313121 - 02/17/03 03:52 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

It sucks that some people abuse it, but not everyone does that. I don't think it would be fair for the people that have serious problems.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: Welfare [Re: Demon]
    #1313126 - 02/17/03 03:58 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

It should be abolished because it violates individual rights and is therefore immoral.

Note that I am speaking ONLY of welfare that is funded by tax dollars, not of voluntary donations, i.e. charities.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEarth_Droid
Stranger
Registered: 04/19/02
Posts: 5,240
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Welfare [Re: Phred]
    #1313133 - 02/17/03 04:07 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Oh ya, ok, I agree with you there for sure. I wonder how many people on welfare actually need it with all the jobs that are possible such as home jobs on the computer.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilocybeingzz
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/15/02
Posts: 14,463
Loc: International waters
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Welfare [Re: Earth_Droid]
    #1313139 - 02/17/03 04:13 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

"Oh ya, ok, I agree with you there for sure. I wonder how many people on welfare actually need it with all the jobs that are possible such as home jobs on the computer. "

ya well that isnt possible for HUGE ammounts of the population

and only 7% of the world has access to the net and 40 million of your fellow americans have NO medical and 11 million american children go to bed hungry every night!
SO think about that and keep in mind CORPORATE WEFARE is WAY BIGGER than personal welfare

People DESERVE a "hand up"
if you fall through the cracks what are you supposed to do just die?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefredthetree
Stranger

Registered: 09/29/02
Posts: 473
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
Re: Welfare [Re: Demon]
    #1313157 - 02/17/03 04:44 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

errggg.. welfare pisses me off.  I happen to know someone, and she's got three kids, and on welfare.  Now she could easily go out and get a job, but instead, she's on welfare.  Her welfare pays for her to go to college, and she'll continue to get welfare as long as she stays in college.  So she keeps taking new courses, at the expense of the Canadian tax payers, and not to mention she has a newer, better car than me.  And I'm paying for it. :mad: 


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAsanteA
flip-flop magician
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 54,123
Loc: Right Here - Right Now
Last seen: 32 minutes, 48 seconds
Re: Welfare [Re: Demon]
    #1313159 - 02/17/03 04:46 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

You're the only Cenobite I know of, no wonder you've got a job...

Seriously: Welfare is NEEDED. Alot of people who get it shouldn't, but some cannot exist without it. What should they do? Die? :frown:
Has nobody that's on welfare ever contributed to the nation?
No offence please, but I see why they call you Pinhead...

 


--------------------
CLICK ONE -->  :redpill:  :bluepill:  <-- GO PLACES
SEARCH ENGINE  SUPPORT TICKETS  STORE  SPONSORS/VENDORS  AMANI
PSYCHOSIS, SYNCHRONICITIES, SHAMANISM & THE SUPERNATURAL WA&F

From the Outcasts to the Incrowd, from the Clueless to the Helpful, it takes the whole Shroomery to help a n00b


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJackal
Well Versed In Etiquette
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/16/02
Posts: 4,571
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
Re: Welfare [Re: Demon]
    #1313162 - 02/17/03 04:48 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Keep it, but means test everyone fairly.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefredthetree
Stranger

Registered: 09/29/02
Posts: 473
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
Re: Welfare [Re: Jackal]
    #1313164 - 02/17/03 04:53 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Yeah, although some people (like the one I mentioned earlier) abuse it, there are those who really do need it. I jsut think there needs to be some better way to prevent people from abusing it. Or maybe some better way of determining if a person is actually in need of it?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineScarfmeister
Thrill Seeker
Registered: 10/31/02
Posts: 8,127
Loc: The will to power
Last seen: 3 years, 7 months
Re: Welfare [Re: Demon]
    #1313194 - 02/17/03 05:36 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

I remember back when i got my first job. I had to move to another city and buy myself a pretty expensive apartment since apartments and rooms where non existent there.

I worked hard for about two years when all of the sudden i got laid off along with half the company. So there i was, unemployed with a big mortgage to pay off every month. I was confident that i could get a new job fairly quickly since this was the time when the IT sector screamed for good people.

Not wanting to ask my parents to give me money as i always did i decided to go down to the social service office and explain my situation. What happened? They basically laughed at me and told me to sell off my apartment and anything else of value that i owned.
I asked them how i was supposed to be able to get a new job if i didn't have anywhere to live and they told me that it was not their problem. At this point i was getting really pissed so i told them to go fuck themselves and called my parents.

2 months after that i had a new job and i was back on my feet's.

I know tons of people who sit on their asses everyday and smoke weed who gets their whole life payed by social services, house, car, clothes everything yet it was to much to ask for them to help me out in my time of need.
What if my parents where poor? I would have been forced to leave the city and move back in to my parents house and then start looking for a new job and a new apartment.

Fuck welfare and fuck the social services. I'm tired of paying tax so that others can live for free. We tax paying ordinary citizens apparently doesn't qualify for welfare. Motherfuckers.


--------------------
--------------------
We're the lowest of the low, the scum of the fucking earth!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDemon
A Drug AgainstWar

Registered: 06/19/00
Posts: 457
Loc: j00/2 m07h3/2
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
Re: Welfare [Re: Asante]
    #1313288 - 02/17/03 06:49 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

lolz none taken :smile:


--------------------
"Sex is like a gun.. you aim, you shoot, you run" - Aerosmith

Come visit SacredShrooms.org!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Welfare [Re: Demon]
    #1313544 - 02/17/03 09:29 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Welfare should be kept, but it needs reform. Most people only stay on welfare temporarily, while they look for work, but there are some people out there who leech off the system. It would be disastrous if we did away with it, but something has to be done about the lazy fucks who don't want to get a job.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Welfare [Re: Demon]
    #1313584 - 02/17/03 09:55 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Welfare should be massively increased for those who need it and corporate welfare (which is around three times the welfare given to the poor) should be slashed. I don't pay tax's so millionaires can award themselves 400% pay rises.

You judge a society on how well it treats the vulnerable. Not how well it treats the rich.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMurex
Reality Hacker

Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 9 years, 9 months
Re: Welfare [Re: Demon]
    #1314089 - 02/17/03 01:06 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Abolished or reformed.

I don't have a job right now, and I'm not going to go on welfare because I would be a hipakrit. Being on welfare would make me feel bad cuz I'm taking money from others while I'm sitting on my ass. It just ain't right.


--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Welfare [Re: Demon]
    #1314332 - 02/17/03 02:44 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

people who are completely against welfare do not understand economics or sociology very well. in a large, dynamic, free economy like ours, it is impossible to get the unemployment rate below around 4%. 7% unemployment is doing pretty good. being unemployed means wanting to work, but not being able to find work. yes, "personal responsibility" should certainly be something we encourage and strive towards, but the plain truth is that being unemployed has nothing to do with being irresponsible or lazy. when people are down on their luck (and remember, some people always will be) should we just let them freeze or starve?

also, in times of recession, more people are unemployed or don't make enough money to make ends meet. this is not their fault, it is the economy. if not for welfare programs, recessions would stumble through a downward spiral and unemployment would skyrocket. the great economist john maynard keynes recognized this.

i'm not adressing those who are disgusted with the number of truly lazy people who abuse welfare and are leeches on our society. i can certainly sympathize with them. but we need welfare, it's an essential part of a free economy.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineenotake2
Stop Bush's war
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 1,457
Loc: Comfy chair in my lounger...
Last seen: 6 years, 10 days
Re: Welfare [Re: ]
    #1314371 - 02/17/03 02:58 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Yay mushmaster.

if not for welfare programs, recessions would stumble through a downward spiral and unemployment would skyrocket. the great economist john maynard keynes recognized this.

Yep welfare money goes back into the economy to businesses which provide jobs, etc.

And not everyone can find work as the number of unemployed is greater than the number of jobs available. I agree with you that the number of welfare 'bludgers' is over-represented in people's minds, and it's no excuse to not provide for people without jobs. I doubt that with the level of greed and materialism in this society that they could all be provided for any other way.


--------------------
Computer games don't affect kids. I mean if Pacman affected our generation as kids, we'd all be running around in a darkened room, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.

"Being bitter and hateful is like drinking a vial of poison and hoping the other person gets sick" FreakQLibrium

"My motto from here on out is: If someone or something (including me) in my life is conducting themselves in such a way that they can be seen on Jerry Springer, it's time to take out the garbage!!! When you stop taking their behaviour personally and see their antics as a true reflection on their character, it becomes absolutely nauseating." Anon. on abusive relationships.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: Welfare [Re: ]
    #1315593 - 02/17/03 11:47 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

mushmaster writes:

people who are completely against welfare do not understand economics or sociology very well.

Incorrect on both counts.

when people are down on their luck (and remember, some people always will be) should we just let them freeze or starve?

We are free at all times to voluntarily help anyone we wish to whatever extent we wish. Please justify to us, from a spiritual, philosophical, or scientific point of view why the existence of unfortunate individuals requires the initiation of force against peaceful individuals.

if not for welfare programs, recessions would stumble through a downward spiral and unemployment would skyrocket.

Incorrect. If that was indeed the case, then the first business recession to ever occur (long before there was such a thing as government redistribution of income) would still be with us. It isn't, because business cycles are both inevitable and self-correcting.

the great economist john maynard keynes recognized this.

Keynes was incorrect. His theories have been disproven both by other economists and by observable history. Remember that it was the direct application of Keynsian economics that produced (for the first time in recorded history) the hitherto unknown phenomenon of "stagflation" -- the simultaneous occurrence of high unemployment, rapid increase in cost of living, and declining GDP.

Back to the issue of welfare, however -- to say that it is correct to initiate force against peaceful individuals solely because other individuals exist is to make a mockery of spirituality, philosophy, and science.

pinky



--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineNomad
Mad Robot

Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 9 years, 6 months
Re: Welfare [Re: Phred]
    #1315654 - 02/18/03 01:09 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

We are free at all times to voluntarily help anyone we wish to whatever extent we wish. Please justify to us, from a spiritual, philosophical, or scientific point of view why the existence of unfortunate individuals requires the initiation of force against peaceful individuals.

From the philosophical point of view, The "initiation of force" argument is a fallacy, since the existence of "unfortunate individuals" is usually the result of previous initiation of force. In nature, everyone who is starving is free to eat from the tree. In a human society, the tree can be in private possession of an individual, which means that eating from the tree is forbidden by threat of force.

From the scientific point of view, it is not a question of morality at all. The question is about which group has the bigger guns. The rich usually own the bigger guns, but, surprisingly, the rich are often stupid enough to demand the abolishment of welfare, and, as a result, the poor will overpower the rich by sheer numbers. The poor then become the rich, and vice versa. They call it history.

From a spiritual point of view, I do not see any good reason why any Buddha should starve on this planet. If people can be fed and clothed by voluntary donation, that is fine to me. But if not, I say, yup... feed the poor, eat the rich.

Please justify the existence of starving individuals, either philosophically, spiritually, or scientifically.



Edited by Nomad (02/18/03 01:12 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: Welfare [Re: Nomad]
    #1315693 - 02/18/03 02:25 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Nomad writes:

From the philosophical point of view, The "initiation of force" argument is a fallacy, since the existence of "unfortunate individuals" is usually the result of previous initiation of force.

Incorrect. No initiation of force was involved in the coming into existence of an individual born blind or crippled or of less than average intelligence. No initiation of force was involved in the coming into existence of an individual whose village was flooded by a monsoon, or whose parents happen to live in a drought-stricken area.

Even if their misfortune is "usually" the result of prior application of force (and it isn't), there is no philosophical justification for applying force to those who had nothing to do with the original application of force. The INITIATION of force (or threat thereof) can NEVER be justified, only the RETALIATORY use of force, and even then only against those who initiated (or threatened) it in the first place, not against some random individual on the other side of the planet.

From the scientific point of view, it is not a question of morality at all. The question is about which group has the bigger guns.

The above made no sense, either scientifically or otherwise.

From a spiritual point of view, I do not see any good reason why any Buddha should starve on this planet.

But you haven't yet provided a spiritual justification (or ANY reason at all) why a starving Buddha should have his starvation prevented through the forceful violation of the rights of others. Note that if he were really a Buddha, he would object to such actions being perpetrated on his behalf. Buddhist monks identify with a begging bowl (charity), not an Uzi (welfare).

If people can be fed and clothed by voluntary donation, that is fine to me. But if not, I say, yup... feed the poor, eat the rich.

So you believe it is correct to initiate force against peaceful individuals -- we knew that already. What we still don't know is why you believe it. What is your spiritual, philosophical, or scientific justification for the initiation of force against those who have done no harm?

Please justify the existence of starving individuals, either philosophically, spiritually, or scientifically.

Well, I could correctly refuse to answer that until you provide answers with some backing rather than arbitrary opinions to my questions, but what the hell -- I'll cut you some slack just this once:

Philosophically, the existence of starving people is a metaphysical phenomenon -- through no fault of their own (or of anyone else), some individuals (of any species) are born who are unable to feed themselves either because they lack the physical and mental capacity to do so or because they are born in an area of the world inimical to the survival of every individual inhabiting that area.

Spiritually, the existence of starving people is justified through such arbitrary concepts as "original sin" and "bad karma". For the record, I believe in neither.

Scientifically the existence of starving people is identical to the philosophical reason -- it is an observable and testable fact that a certain percentage of individuals (of every species) exist who lack the capacity (or resources) to feed themselves.

Note that I have not attempted to justify the existence of starving people because their existence need not be justified, merely observed. There is no "justification" for their existence just as there is no "justification" for the existence of a diseased pigeon -- both exist. The existence of an entity is outside the scope of the concept "justification" -- an entity is, and that's all there is to say about it. Rocks, quasars, and mosquitoes exist, whether some religion somewhere claims to provide a "justification" for their existence or not. "Justification" is a null concept in the context of "existence".

The term "justification" may properly be applied only to volitionally directed actions, and even then only in a situation where the alternative of more than one action exists.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineNomad
Mad Robot

Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 9 years, 6 months
Re: Welfare [Re: Phred]
    #1315756 - 02/18/03 03:41 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

No initiation of force was involved in the coming into existence of an individual born blind or crippled or of less than average intelligence. No initiation of force was involved in the coming into existence of an individual whose village was flooded by a monsoon, or whose parents happen to live in a drought-stricken area.

Agreed.

Even if their misfortune is "usually" the result of prior application of force (and it isn't), there is no philosophical justification for applying force to those who had nothing to do with the original application of force.

But the application of force is not something which happened only in the past. It has a continuity into the present. We have rich people, and then we have poor people. This is because the former are able to back up their possessions beyond need by the use of force. Without force, no one could possess more than one house to live in.

The INITIATION of force (or threat thereof) can NEVER be justified

Is that a premise or what? If not, you come to this conclusion exactly how?

, only the RETALIATORY use of force, and even then only against those who initiated (or threatened) it in the first place, not against some random individual on the other side of the planet.

Story time. There is a planet where everyone has the same amount of things. Then, aliens invade the planet, forcefully divide it into two halves, and give all things to the people on the upper half. After that, the aliens disappear. According to your argument, the people on the lower half would have no right to get back their things with force, if need to be? That hardly is a convincing argument. Neither philosophically, nor scientifically, and not spiritually, either.

The above made no sense, either scientifically or otherwise.

Yes, but only because your demand for a scientific "justification" was nonsensical in the first place. Science is not concerned with justifying things, it just describes what is. You already pointed this out, though, but in a strange context.

But you haven't yet provided a spiritual justification (or ANY reason at all) why a starving Buddha should have his starvation prevented through the forceful violation of the rights of others.

Letting someone starve when there is an abundance of food means killing him, there is no moral difference. You initiate force to keep him away from the food. Violence against possessions (i.e. taking something away form someone and giving it to someone else) ranks lower than violence against people (i.e. initiating force to keep a starving man away from the food) in my ethical hierarchy.

You try to establish private property rights as a given, unchangeable fact. That is, basically, the "natural law" argument by the libertarian right. It is flawed. Private property does not exist in nature, it is brought into being by the application of sheer force.

But you haven't yet provided a spiritual justification (or ANY reason at all) why a starving Buddha should have his starvation prevented through the forceful violation of the rights of others. Note that if he were really a Buddha, he would object to such actions being perpetrated on his behalf. Buddhist monks identify with a begging bowl (charity), not an Uzi (welfare).

Uh. Leaving your doubtful understanding of buddhist philosophy aside, there have been prominent buddhist masters who led peasant revolts against the landlords. Such incidents are well recorded in history. I can look one up if you are interested.

Letting people starve is generally not considered good ethics. Neither in buddhism, nor in any other spiritual tradition.

As far as your arguments are concerned...

Philosophically, the existence of starving people is a metaphysical phenomenon

No, it is a physical phenomenon. There are people who starve. Children, mostly. We can see, hear, feel them, you can hear their cries, you can talk to them and they will tell you that they are starving. You can count them. It is as physical as it can get.

-- through no fault of their own (or of anyone else), some individuals (of any species) are born who are unable to feed themselves either because they lack the physical and mental capacity to do so or because they are born in an area of the world inimical to the survival of every individual inhabiting that area.

That is a scientific description of what there is. You didn't make any philosophical argument at all, except labeling it as "metaphysical".

Spiritually, the existence of starving people is justified through such arbitrary concepts as "original sin" and "bad karma". For the record, I believe in neither.

Judge not, lest you be judged. No one who believes in the concept of karma (and I do) would argue that bad karma "justifies" anything. Such a statement gives you bad karma in itself. Helping people gives you good karma.

There is no "justification" for their existence just as there is no "justification" for the existence of a diseased pigeon -- both exist. The existence of an entity is outside the scope of the concept "justification" -- an entity is, and that's all there is to say about it. Rocks, quasars, and mosquitoes exist, whether some religion somewhere claims to provide a "justification" for their existence or not. "Justification" is a null concept in the context of "existence".

Huh? And your point is, exactly, what... ?


Edited by Nomad (02/18/03 03:43 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Ethics And Downloading Music
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
DiploidM 5,159 112 05/30/05 08:26 PM
by trendal
* Ethics: Music Pirates = Spammers
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
DiploidM 8,224 137 10/31/06 12:02 PM
by Veritas
* Ethics
( 1 2 all )
daimyo 2,671 23 03/24/06 11:30 PM
by Corporal Kielbasa
* are "ethics" worth talking about?
( 1 2 all )
Malachi 3,353 39 08/22/03 03:08 PM
by Rhizoid
* Help with Paper on "Ethics" learningtofly 601 16 04/13/09 05:25 AM
by Lakefingers
* The Ethics of Cheating
( 1 2 3 all )
DiploidM 4,048 53 05/08/07 01:08 PM
by Icelander
* Ethics
( 1 2 3 all )
Voido 2,331 52 11/28/08 11:57 AM
by Voido
* Individual ethics Lion 1,616 17 03/25/08 05:06 PM
by publicenemy1

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
5,803 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Edabea
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.05 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 21 queries.