Entitlements?

[work in progress]

I believe life does works on both luck and purpose. From the perspective of children born in dirty mud huts in an AIDS infested village that sure isn't purpose

Exactly! And that is why there is nothing more offensive than to listen to prosperous conservatives proclaim their achievements, or the blessings that God has bestowed upon them...instead of the millions who begin and end their lives in misery, and continually on the brink of starvation.

 

[Alceste]

Exactly! And that is why there is nothing more offensive than to listen to prosperous conservatives proclaim their achievements, or the blessings that God has bestowed upon them...instead of the millions who begin and end their lives in misery, and continually on the brink of starvation.

Absolutely! The flip side to the belief that our good fortune is the result of our virtue is that everybody else's bad fortune is the result of their lack of virtue. You simply can not believe the former without also believing the latter. The implications of the belief that suffering, disease, poverty, starvation, death and general bad luck are deserved are very disturbing. What have 29,000 dead Somalian pre-schoolers ever done to "deserve" starvation? And if they "deserve" it, why bother trying to help?

This is where most conservatives abandon their argument - "Well, that doesn't count - it's totally different!" they say. How is it different? Where is this imaginary line drawn between "deserved" suffering and "unfortunate" suffering? Why not just have a consistent world view?

 

[work in progress]

Absolutely! The flip side to the belief that our good fortune is the result of our virtue is that everybody else's bad fortune is the result of their lack of virtue. You simply can not believe the former without also believing the latter. The implications of the belief that suffering, disease, poverty, starvation, death and general bad luck are deserved are very disturbing. What have 29,000 dead Somalian pre-schoolers ever done to "deserve" starvation? And if they "deserve" it, why bother trying to help?

This is where most conservatives abandon their argument - "Well, that doesn't count - it's totally different!" they say. How is it different? Where is this imaginary line drawn between "deserved" suffering and "unfortunate" suffering? Why not just have a consistent world view?

In public, most conservatives will try to veer away from the issue of whether the poor, the malnourished, and the victims of genocide and sex crimes deserve what God has given them, but yes that is the flipside of any sort of theology that preaches that God will provide rewards in the here and now.

I noticed during the time that I was on a close conservative discussion forum (only viewed by members online), that a lot of righteous, rightwing conservatives felt free to let their hair down and really let it all hang out!

One issue really left an impression on me -- a few years back, these righteous conservatives...who are likely tea party activists now...were harshly condemning the Bush Administration for increasing funding for Aids and humanitarian relief in East African countries such as Kenya and Uganda. Ironic that right wing Christians were all for the wars and domestic policies of Bush, but how dare he give aid to Africa...that wasn't funneled through churches and contingent on conversion, I presume. In public, the criticism from rightwing pundits and bloggers was muted, if expressed...but within the club, the same people who proclaim their God is concerned about all the people in this world, were wide open about what they thought of black Africans and why their continent suffers so much deprivation.

 

[Alceste]

In public, most conservatives will try to veer away from the issue of whether the poor, the malnourished, and the victims of genocide and sex crimes deserve what God has given them, but yes that is the flipside of any sort of theology that preaches that God will provide rewards in the here and now.

I noticed during the time that I was on a close conservative discussion forum (only viewed by members online), that a lot of righteous, rightwing conservatives felt free to let their hair down and really let it all hang out!

One issue really left an impression on me -- a few years back, these righteous conservatives...who are likely tea party activists now...were harshly condemning the Bush Administration for increasing funding for Aids and humanitarian relief in East African countries such as Kenya and Uganda. Ironic that right wing Christians were all for the wars and domestic policies of Bush, but how dare he give aid to Africa...that wasn't funneled through churches and contingent on conversion, I presume. In public, the criticism from rightwing pundits and bloggers was muted, if expressed...but within the club, the same people who proclaim their God is concerned about all the people in this world, were wide open about what they thought of black Africans and why their continent suffers so much deprivation.

Regardless of whether they are open about their belief that those who suffer terribly are deserving of their misfortune, their preferred public policies (anything to speeds the dismantling of the social safety net, labour and environmental regulations) makes it quite clear that modern American conservatives want to do absolutely everything in their power to increase the suffering of the "undeserving" poor. And why not? By making life worse for everybody but the richest 1%, they are only helping God mete out his infallible judgment.

 

[Kathryn]

1) Then I just don't want to hear any more about how awesome you've been with money and hard work, and how so many other people aren't that awesome.

mball - it really should go without saying that you are not forced or coerced in any way to read any of my posts. That being said, I'll interact on this forum as I believe is appropriate. If the hosts have a problem with it, I'm open to their suggestions or corrections.

 

[Kathryn]

Don't worry, we'll be on the receiving end in time.

Well, you're wise to realize that.

 

[Kathryn]

In public, most conservatives will try to veer away from the issue of whether the poor, the malnourished, and the victims of genocide and sex crimes deserve what God has given them, but yes that is the flipside of any sort of theology that preaches that God will provide rewards in the here and now.

I noticed during the time that I was on a close conservative discussion forum (only viewed by members online), that a lot of righteous, rightwing conservatives felt free to let their hair down and really let it all hang out!

One issue really left an impression on me -- a few years back, these righteous conservatives...who are likely tea party activists now...were harshly condemning the Bush Administration for increasing funding for Aids and humanitarian relief in East African countries such as Kenya and Uganda. Ironic that right wing Christians were all for the wars and domestic policies of Bush, but how dare he give aid to Africa...that wasn't funneled through churches and contingent on conversion, I presume. In public, the criticism from rightwing pundits and bloggers was muted, if expressed...but within the club, the same people who proclaim their God is concerned about all the people in this world, were wide open about what they thought of black Africans and why their continent suffers so much deprivation.

Well, I'm glad I've never subjected myself to such forums - I wouldn't be interested in doing so, since I cannot in any way relate to the scenario you just described. Not my "kind of folks" in the least.



I don't believe in luck - I believe in the ramifications of actions. Some actions have absolutely catastrophic consequences on completely innocent victims. That's not luck - that's cause and effect.

 

[Alceste]

Well, I'm glad I've never subjected myself to such forums - I wouldn't be interested in doing so, since I cannot in any way relate to the scenario you just described. Not my "kind of folks" in the least.



I don't believe in luck - I believe in the ramifications of actions. Some actions have absolutely catastrophic consequences on completely innocent victims. That's not luck - that's cause and effect.

That seems reasonable enough.

Would you agree that some of the completely innocent victims of cause and effect might be the American people in general, and that the cause of their increasing inability to make ends meet might be public policies - endorsed by both parties - that are specifically and purposefully designed to concentrate money and power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many?

If so, then you should grab a sign and head over to Wall Street.

 

[Kathryn]

That seems reasonable enough.

Would you agree that some of the completely innocent victims of cause and effect might be the American people in general, and that the cause of their increasing inability to make ends meet is a public policy direction endorsed by both parties that is specifically and purposefully designed to concentrate money and power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many?

If so, then you should grab a sign and head over to Wall Street.

I do believe there are some Americans whose suffering in poverty is caused at least in part by the mismanagement and application of poor public policy endorsed by both parties, that is sometimes specifically and purposefully designed to concentrate money and power in the hands of a few. Absolutely - and I also believe that most political systems currently and throughout history have been guilty of the same crimes against the people.

I've stated repeatedly on this forum that I agree with some of the wide range of issues that the OWS protestors have raised. I also agree with some of the issues that the Tea Party protestors have raised.

I believe that our politicians have totally let us down as a people and that a revolution of some sort is needed at this point, since OBVIOUSLY we don't have Washington's attention.

But I believe that Washington is the crux of the problem - that if our elected officials had not allowed and implemented policy that put their interests ahead of their constituents' well being, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.

 

[Kathryn]

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to work. I've been on my lunch break.

 

[Magic Man]

mball - it really should go without saying that you are not forced or coerced in any way to read any of my posts. That being said, I'll interact on this forum as I believe is appropriate. If the hosts have a problem with it, I'm open to their suggestions or corrections.

You're missing the point. You have now agreed that you're no better than younger generations, which is great.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't believe in luck - I believe in the ramifications of actions. Some actions have absolutely catastrophic consequences on completely innocent victims. That's not luck - that's cause and effect.

So, you realize that people are subject to the ramifications of other people's actions, then, right? For instance, a baby is subject to the ramifications of its parents' actions, and an employee is subject to the ramifications of his boss's actions. In other words, you can't control everything, which means you're subject to luck.

 

[Kathryn]

It doesn't mean that at all. But feel free to call it that if it makes you feel better.

 

[Averroes]

I guess being born in an unlucky situation isn't bad luck? Not trying to make this a cause and effect discussion but this is why I said from the perspective of victims, being in an unfortunate situation is not purpose. Tribal leaders in Africa who envourage their people to do rituals to prevent AIDS minus using proper contraception don't purposefully encourage people to practice risky sex, they are going by tradition. Which is why children born in auch environments are unlucky. With the exception of severe suicidal ideation, nobody consciously and willingly choose their demise on that level

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're missing the point. You have now agreed that you're no better than younger generations, which is great.

You are making alot of very unfair assumptions. My parents both come from the Baby Boomer time, and both were very poor growing up. My mom's family was one of the few in their community that had enough money to afford a real carpet on their floor, rather than dirt like some families had. My dad dropped out of high school to help his family financially. Both were very poor until about 20 years ago when my dad got a job at Chrysler. My mom's brother never made it far above poverty, and all my dad's siblings are still poor either from poor choices or just not being able to find a good enough paying job. Actually there will probably many Baby Boomers coming out of retirement, if they even get to retire in the first place.

 

[Magic Man]

You are making alot of very unfair assumptions. My parents both come from the Baby Boomer time, and both were very poor growing up. My mom's family was one of the few in their community that had enough money to afford a real carpet on their floor, rather than dirt like some families had. My dad dropped out of high school to help his family financially. Both were very poor until about 20 years ago when my dad got a job at Chrysler. My mom's brother never made it far above poverty, and all my dad's siblings are still poor either from poor choices or just not being able to find a good enough paying job. Actually there will probably many Baby Boomers coming out of retirement, if they even get to retire in the first place.

What unfair assumptions am I making?

 

[Reverend Rick]

What unfair assumptions am I making?

For one thing, that there is only one correct viewpoint a person can hold.

Secondly, that you always use your superior reasoning skills to reach the correct conclusion without fail.

Thirdly, anyone that holds a conflicting viewpoint must automatically be wrong.

Please don't take this as an attack Matt, I don't want to see this thread deteriorate any further.

You asked the question OK?

I personally know that I have various faults and many times are wrong about things.

I'm not asking you to point out the obvious about me unlike you.

We have an opportunity to come together here.

In the future, you may or may not have the same opportunities earlier generations have had. That is a fair observation.

The thing is, it is still speculation. Your generation may receive an unforeseen windfall in the future, then again maybe not.

Parents should be the one's to decide how to raise their children. You as a parent are supplying a better environment financially than Kathryn did, but only you know if your care giver is adequate or not.

Kathryn, chose to raise her children 24-7 while they where young, it was her choice.

I don't even want to judge which one of you made the best decision because like I said before, there are not always right and wrong choices, just opinions about each choice.

If I could change the focus here for just one moment, you made a comment about Obama.

I know you will not vote for a GOP candidate, but honestly are you happy with giving our President another 4 years?

I believe you are just choosing between evils here.

You can't tell me you will be thrilled with Obama after 8 years can you?

 

[Magic Man]

For one thing, that there is only one correct viewpoint a person can hold.

For such a bold claim, it should be pretty easy to provide evidence.

Secondly, that you always use your superior reasoning skills to reach the correct conclusion without fail.

It's not just about reasoning skills, but yes, when I find a topic that interests me, I research it, and then use reason and logic to come to the right conclusion. Now sure what this has to do with this thread, though.

Thirdly, anyone that holds a conflicting viewpoint must automatically be wrong.

Again, it should be pretty easy to provide evidence of such a bold claim. Care to try?

Please don't take this as an attack Matt, I don't want to see this thread deteriorate any further.

You asked the question OK?

Yes, and you failed to answer it, instead taking the opportunity to attack things other than the points I've made in this thread. You should know better.

Now, if you feel I've made unfair assumptions in this thread about this topic, please explain. Otherwise, this is pointless. Also, my question was directed at Shadow Wolf because she made the claim, but then made some other points that didn't seem to be relevant. I was curious what she meant.

If I could change the focus here for just one moment, you made a comment about Obama.

I know you will not vote for a GOP candidate, but honestly are you happy with giving our President another 4 years?

I believe you are just choosing between evils here.

You can't tell me you will be thrilled with Obama after 8 years can you?

How do I know whether I'll be thrilled with him after 8 years? I'll have to wait and see. If he does thing mostly like he did in this term, no, I wouldn't be thrilled with him. You say you know I won't vote for a GOP candidate as if it's a sure thing. It's not. I've said several times recently that I'd consider voting for Romney. At this point I'd lean towards Obama, but I don't just rule out republicans because they're republican.

 

[Reverend Rick]

How do I know whether I'll be thrilled with him after 8 years? I'll have to wait and see. If he does thing mostly like he did in this term, no, I wouldn't be thrilled with him.

Is not insanity repeating the same action again expecting a different result?

You say you know I won't vote for a GOP candidate as if it's a sure thing. It's not. I've said several times recently that I'd consider voting for Romney. At this point I'd lean towards Obama, but I don't just rule out republicans because they're republican.

I'm impressed. :clap

As for the rest of your post, I'll get back to you later OK?

 

[Magic Man]

Is not insanity repeating the same action again expecting a different result?

As defined by Einstein, yes. However, I don't see the relevance. I'm not repeating the same action expecting a different result. If I vote for him, I'd be hoping for a different result. I wouldn't necessarily expect it. Plus, there is reason to believe his second term might be better.

I'm impressed. :clap

Hell, if Ron Paul was a little less crazy, I'd vote for him.