PDA

View Full Version : fact



Paul Pless
04-24-2015, 08:26 AM
All political threads and posts to this forum are in effect either trolls or flames. Don't kid yourself otherwise. . .

The Bigfella
04-24-2015, 08:44 AM
troll

Paul Pless
04-24-2015, 08:47 AM
by definition

ccmanuals
04-24-2015, 08:50 AM
All political threads and posts to this forum are in effect either trolls or flames. Don't kid yourself otherwise. . .

Paul, when you post a picture of a boat aren't you in fact trolling?

Paul Pless
04-24-2015, 08:55 AM
nope

CWSmith
04-24-2015, 09:15 AM
The current thread on the food server in DC turned particularly ugly. Some of the comments there make me want to toss my last meal.

Keith Wilson
04-24-2015, 09:17 AM
No, they're not, not all of them. Cynicism is bad for you.

Norman Bernstein
04-24-2015, 09:51 AM
The current thread on the food server in DC turned particularly ugly. Some of the comments there make me want to toss my last meal.

More to the point, it revealed some VERY ugly attitudes... shockingly ugly, in fact.

However, I won't delete the thread, nor will I lock it.

Sky Blue
04-24-2015, 10:12 AM
All political threads and posts to this forum are in effect either trolls or flames.

Not necessarily, there have been many good and fair discussions on myriad political topics.


The current thread on the food server in DC turned particularly ugly. Some of the comments there make me want to toss my last meal.

Me too. The haters really showed up for that one.


No, they're not, not all of them.

Keith is right.


More to the point, it revealed some VERY ugly attitudes... shockingly ugly, in fact.



Yes, Norman, it sure did. I was shocked to see just how many persons here simply cannot tolerate a difference of opinion without name calling, insults and the rest of it. I've listened to many upsetting, revolting political views and arguments here without going off like that on persons. Many on the left in here should take a good look at themselves for how they behaved in that thread.

What is astonishing, really, is the level of vitriol and backlash given over to a response calling for personal responsibility, coupled with the notion that the gentleman bears the primary responsibility for the situation he finds himself in. When a discussion descends into insults and name calling, as was the case in that thread, we can see that the haters really have nothing, no arguments, no useful perspectives, no one provided a counter argument other than hate, no one other than Keith discussed possible solutions to the man's situation that would materially change it.

Michael D. Storey
04-24-2015, 10:29 AM
Paul, when you post a picture of a boat aren't you in fact trolling?

Only if it sunk

Nicholas Scheuer
04-24-2015, 11:18 AM
And here I thought they were entertainment!

Norman Bernstein
04-24-2015, 12:05 PM
Yes, Norman, it sure did. I was shocked to see just how many persons here simply cannot tolerate a difference of opinion without name calling, insults and the rest of it. I've listened to many upsetting, revolting political views and arguments here without going off like that on persons. Many on the left in here should take a good look at themselves for how they behaved in that thread.

I frankly don't give a rat's ass.

I can tolerate all sorts of divergent opinions on politics, economics, or whatever.....

...but what I will NOT remain civil for is anyone with the astoundingly disgusting perspective that poor, struggling people are that way because they have a character defect.

Am I a hater? Yes... I hate blind prejudice, I hate uncaring, unfeeling, and essentially inhuman attitudes towards others, and I don't give a sh|t if there's some sort of philosophical foundation for views like that. We are indeed our brother's keeper, and I won't stand for a 'screw you, I got mine' attitude from ANYONE.

Anyone who believes that most poor people are poor by choice is suffering from a defect of their own: a lack of the humanity gene.

If you're going to spout opinions like that, then you don't deserve civility.

Sky Blue
04-24-2015, 12:19 PM
Sorry, Norman, you are wrong on this one, and deep inside you know it, which is why you remain upset and in fact have now stooped so low as to make an argument for incivility.

Further, you do give a rat's azz, which is why you have responded but have nothing more than an argument for incivility. Contrary to your assertions, you in fact cannot tolerate various divergent opinions, and in fact are so confused (or dishonest) that you are unable to even fairly articulate the argued point of view.

No one argued that the gentleman's character is flawed or defective. The argument is that he is primarily responsible for the condition in which he finds himself, and that his choices and decisions have obviously had much to do with that.

RonW
04-24-2015, 12:40 PM
I frankly don't give a rat's ass.

I can tolerate all sorts of divergent opinions on politics, economics, or whatever.....

...but what I will NOT remain civil for is anyone with the astoundingly disgusting perspective that poor, struggling people are that way because they have a character defect.

Am I a hater? Yes... I hate blind prejudice, I hate uncaring, unfeeling, and essentially inhuman attitudes towards others, and I don't give a sh|t if there's some sort of philosophical foundation for views like that. We are indeed our brother's keeper, and I won't stand for a 'screw you, I got mine' attitude from ANYONE.

Anyone who believes that most poor people are poor by choice is suffering from a defect of their own: a lack of the humanity gene.

If you're going to spout opinions like that, then you don't deserve civility.


A 10 % tithe to the local food banks would go a long way in squelching those feelings.

delecta
04-24-2015, 12:48 PM
Anyone who believes that most poor people are poor by choice is suffering from a defect of their own: a lack of the humanity gene.



Perhaps not all but many, if you care to debate that fact I'm game.

Sky Blue
04-24-2015, 01:00 PM
if you care to debate that fact

I don't think he will. He seems very confused. He's claimed that persons wrongly attacked the gentleman by claiming a character defect, then in the same breath turned around and argued that those with a view different from his own are themselves defective, in a direct ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack on their character.

I don't think Norman knows which end is up right now.

john welsford
04-24-2015, 01:09 PM
I dont agree, in a capitalist economy where competitive pricing is everything, and where that economy is stressed and does not have full employment, people will take whatever they can get in the way of a job.
The competitive pricing bit, together with an oversupply of labour means that the employers can get away with paying just enough to contain staff turnover, and no more.
There are people who because of no fault of their own, dont have the skills or resources to get anything better.

Same subject, different slant . Big differences in income, or living standards or however you measure well being, create stress in society. Enough stress, and you get elevated crime levels, disrespect for the law, ultimately revolution and civil war. We're seeing that in some parts of the world now.
Some, the enlightened wealthy, see uplifting the poor as not only a humanitarian issue, but also as a measure of self preservation.


John Welsford



Sorry, Norman, you are wrong on this one, and deep inside you know it, which is why you remain upset and in fact have now stooped so low as to make an argument for incivility.

Further, you do give a rat's azz, which is why you have responded but have nothing more than an argument for incivility. Contrary to your assertions, you in fact cannot tolerate various divergent opinions, and in fact are so confused (or dishonest) that you are unable to even fairly articulate the argued point of view.

No one argued that the gentleman's character is flawed or defective. The argument is that he is primarily responsible for the condition in which he finds himself, and that his choices and decisions have obviously had much to do with that.

RonW
04-24-2015, 01:17 PM
I can tolerate all sorts of divergent opinions on politics, economics, or whatever.....

It never fails that those who claim the high moral ground are almost always the first ones to cast the first stone.......

A shrink would analyze that to be a deep rooted inner feeling of guilt that leads to hostility as an effort to quieten the feelings of guilt..

Norman Bernstein
04-24-2015, 01:19 PM
Sorry, Norman, you are wrong on this one, and deep inside you know it....

Don't tell me what I do, or do not, know. you can put that psychobabble where the sun don't shine. I am normally a pretty reasonable and tolerant person, but everyone has their limits, and you've reached mine. I don't care to discuss ANYTHING with you, any more.

delecta
04-24-2015, 01:23 PM
Some, the enlightened wealthy, see uplifting the poor as not only a humanitarian issue, but also as a measure of self preservation.


Enlightened wealthy? You meant to say guilty liberals.

Last time I checked some guilty liberals, Gates and Buffet were still worth billions, could they not subside on a few million and INVEST<I do this to honor Normie> the rest toward humanitarian issues?

The real problem is that some don't have self preservation in their dna and rely on hand outs, you do realize that if you feed them they will reproduce.

Sky Blue
04-24-2015, 01:25 PM
I appreciate that Mr. Welsford, and do not disagree with your analysis in any way.

The issue (for me) is that the gentleman works in an unskilled foodservice job and walked out to protest that such employment was insufficient to support him as a single father of two sons living in DC.

I understand that he is unhappy, but it seems to me that anyone who expects that an unskilled service job ought to support a family of 3 in a major metropolitan city in the US is simply out to lunch on the principles of basic economics. Either way, he and his family are the one's suffering for it, and persons might be better off guiding their decisions and choices in view of the relative income their skills are likely able to generate.

Choosing to have 2 children and live in DC while working as a food server is a likely recipe for poverty. It just is. So uplift. It is very nice to say, it is a nice, warm political position to hold, but what does uplift mean in the concrete for this gentleman and the millions of others like him? What do you propose ought to be done for this man? How much should he be paid for his work in view of his skills?

RonW
04-24-2015, 01:27 PM
Norman Bernstein says -
Anyone who believes that most poor people are poor by choice is suffering from a defect of their own: a lack of the humanity gene.

Norman wouldn't you have to agree that it would be far more compassionate and wiser to teach those in need rather then being their enabler and dooming them to a life of dependency.

Sky Blue
04-24-2015, 01:29 PM
Don't tell me what I do, or do not, know. you can put that psychobabble where the sun don't shine. I am normally a pretty reasonable and tolerant person, but everyone has their limits, and you've reached mine. I don't care to discuss ANYTHING with you, any more.


Simmer down, Norman. You're the one highlighting text, throwing insults, denying people's humanity for having a point of view different from your own. You are a pretty reasonable and tolerant person, but you've not demonstrated that in this and the other thread.

Norman Bernstein
04-24-2015, 01:30 PM
You've joined RonW on my ignore list. Buhbye.

Sky Blue
04-24-2015, 01:39 PM
You've joined RonW on my ignore list. Buhbye.

Pity. You are one of my favorite contributors, Norman, but that doesn't mean I'll go along when you are wrong on an issue. When you freak out, you really go around the bend.

I'll be happy to engage with you when you decide to calm down and discuss matters reasonably and with decorum.

RonW
04-24-2015, 01:40 PM
You've joined RonW on my ignore list. Buhbye.

And here I thought norm thrived upon a good political debate..... I guess it is all one sided, gee what a shame ..

But then again this whole thread is a Troll.

Tom Montgomery
04-24-2015, 01:45 PM
There are people who because of no fault of their own, dont have the skills or resources to get anything better.
Correct.

And the American right-wingnuts will dispute that fact with all their might. They believe all men are created equal and it is laziness and other character defects that result in poverty. They believe all men and women get what they deserve on this earth.

Keith Wilson
04-24-2015, 03:24 PM
Sky Blue, you're indulging in a false dichotomy, a standard logical error.


Who is in the best position to improve this man's lot in life? The government? Or the man?It is not a choice of one or the other. Most people, including no doubt the fellow in the other thread, can do things that will improve their financial lot. The government, by changes in law and regulation, can change how the economy works and improve the lives of millions of people (or make them worse). Both can be helpful. Which will be more helpful in any given case depends entirely on the details. One certainly does not preclude the other; I think you know this perfectly well. They are quite independent, which is why I say we're talking past each other.

Sky Blue
04-24-2015, 03:32 PM
Sorry, Keith, but that's not right. There is no logical error here.

Indeed, while one certainly does not preclude the other, we are asking for an analysis of who is "best situated" to deal with an individual's circumstances. Best situated is not an either/or analysis, but rather a relative consideration. Simply because the individual happens in most cases to be the best situation doesn't mean that the government can't play a role.

Obviously the individual decides at some point and on some level what he may be able to do, if anything, to improve his situation if the same is desired. The government, who will provide support, is not going to come knocking on his door to do that. This is why the individual, almost always, is in the best position to do something about his situation. Waiting around for the government to do it is likely to be unavailing.

bobbys
04-24-2015, 03:44 PM
Norm is sitting Shiva for Sky and Ron?

Wadda ,yam I chopped liver?.

Even Glen throws me a bone once in awhile and sez Im on fake ignore!

Keith Wilson
04-24-2015, 03:52 PM
we are asking for an analysis of who is "best situated" to deal with an individual's circumstances. That's what you are asking for. I am asking what can be done to improve things, both for this individual and others.

oznabrag
04-24-2015, 03:57 PM
Sorry, Keith, but that's not right. There is no logical error here.
...

Well, you would say that.

Sky Blue
04-24-2015, 04:13 PM
That's what you are asking for. I am asking what can be done to improve things, both for this individual and others.

OK, Keith. Shouldn't we ask that, though? My contribution has been to suggest that part of "what can be done" to alleviate poverty and inequality is to create and incentivize an environment where people understand that their choices can often directly correlate with their poverty status. The evidence for this is overwhelming. This is fundamental and people here know it. I've got 10-15 people running at me on this issue and none of them can get any purchase.

Perhaps it is time that they acknowledge that personal decisions and choices impact the issue of poverty.

Keith Wilson
04-24-2015, 04:27 PM
I don't think anyone in his right mind disagrees that personal choices are one of the things that have an effect on how much money one has. It's when this turns into, 'If you're poor, it's your own fault' that you get such vehement disagreement.

Sky Blue
04-24-2015, 04:33 PM
You have two sentences in #37, Keith. What is the fundamental substantive difference between those two sentences?

I sense we may be getting close to a resolution here.

CWSmith
04-24-2015, 04:40 PM
All political threads and posts to this forum are in effect either trolls or flames. Don't kid yourself otherwise. . .

Well, it's looking like you could be right.

Keith Wilson
04-24-2015, 04:44 PM
You have two sentences in #37, Keith. What is the fundamental substantive difference between those two sentences? You mean these?

"Personal choices are one of the things that have an effect on how much money one has."
"If you're poor, it's your own fault."

The first identifies one's choices as one factor among many.
The second says that one's choices are the only important factor, overriding all the others.

Rum_Pirate
04-24-2015, 04:55 PM
I should get my eyes tested, it has been a few years.

I could have sworn that the thread title had an 'r' instead of a 'c'.

Sky Blue
04-24-2015, 05:29 PM
you mean these

Well, now I see both propositions as saying essentially the same thing, with a difference of opinion perhaps on cause priority. Very well done, Keith.

Either way, the person is in poverty which is corrosive to society. Many or even most may be there because of choices, many others there perhaps for other, more amorphous socio-cultural reasons. I suppose it is easier to argue causes than effect solutions, but causes too must be fairly and honestly discussed if remedies over the long term are to be effected.

Persons should be disincentivized from making choices likely to continue the poverty cycle and should be incentivized to make choices likely to break it.

Keith Wilson
04-24-2015, 06:00 PM
Persons should be disincentivized from making choices likely to continue the poverty cycle and should be incentivized to make choices likely to break it.Avoiding being poor isn't enough of an incentive already? From what I hear, poverty is pretty unpleasant.

Whenever I read something like that quote, 'The floggings will continue until morale improves' comes to mind.

Paul Pless
04-24-2015, 06:55 PM
Persons should be disincentivized from making choices likely to continue the poverty cycle and should be incentivized to make choices likely to break it.funny, 'haha'