Gun Control? How about gun control for the Pentagon?

[Muadib]

How the beep do you know what anyone else has experienced? You don't, but then again, that's typical of the self important's opinions, isn't it?

That's not really relevant since I was making a general statement and not referring to any one person specifically. Perhaps I should've made that clearer.

 

[Muadib]

WTF is wrong with a "work camp", oh that's right. There is first the Muadib version, and then there is the real thing. So what is your version of work camp anyhow? Is the idea of employment really that repulsive to you?

I love these wonderful assumptions that you make. We could argue all day about what constitutes a "work camp" however, the idea was tried a long time ago and led to nothing more than the serial exploitation of the poor and downtrodden.

 

[Jeff Davis]

That's not really relevant since I was making a general statement and not referring to any one person specifically. Work on your reading comprehension.

Bullshit. Your post referred specifically to me. It was a reply to my post about my idea. You, are a liar.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I love these wonderful assumptions that you make. We could argue all day about what constitutes a "work camp" however, the idea was tried a long time ago and led to nothing more than the serial exploitation of the poor and downtrodden.

As good as you pretend to paint yourself at feeling sorry for others, you merely demonstrate your immaturity. You my friend, live in a dream world. Still don't have a clue.

 

[Muadib]

Bullshit. Your post referred specifically to me. It was a reply to my post about my idea. You, are a liar.

I see where you could have gotten confused and I amended the part about reading comprehension, but in all honesty, that was not specifically aimed at you other than the part about your ideas about ghettoes being nonsense.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I see where you could have gotten confused and I amended the part about reading comprehension, but in all honesty, that was not specifically aimed at you other than the part about your ideas about ghettoes being nonsense.

Muadib, you Sir are pathetic and frankly, you bore me.

I'm also not interested in the opinion of a self righteous retard who would advocate putting poor people in work camps.

 

[Muadib]

As good as you pretend to paint yourself at feeling sorry for others, you merely demonstrate your immaturity. You my friend, live in a dream world. Still don't have a clue.

Like I said, coming from you, that's a compliment. Anything else besides more retarded ideas and incorrect assertions about my identity? Yeah, let's put everyone in work camps. You should run for Congress.

 

[Muadib]

Muadib, you Sir are pathetic and frankly, you bore me.

Yadda yadda yadda, do you have anything else besides name calling? I don't really give a shit about what you think of me. The only thing pathetic here is watching you vacillate between conspiracy theories and shit talking.

 

[Jeff Davis]

And you, you should open each post with a disclaimer that states: "I'm twelve" so that I would know not to bother reading.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Yadda yadda yadda, do you have anything else besides name calling? I don't really give a shit about what you think of me. The only thing pathetic here is watching you vacillate between conspiracy theories and shit talking.

You also don't seem to give a shit about the truth either. Hey, at least you're consistent.

 

[Muadib]

And you, you should open each post with a disclaimer that states: "I'm twelve" so that I would know not to bother reading.

Ugh, enough of you, congratulations on being the second person on this forum ignorant enough to find his way to a permanent spot on my ignore list. The other one is Pickles, you're in great company, moron.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Move over pickles. We don't want to bruise poor wittle Muadib's petrified brain. Poor wittle fellow, too bad he was such an arrogant twit.

 

[Burnt State]

Poverty is certainly an issue in outcome and behavior Burnt I don't disagree there. I think though that a solid family can be poor and still raise good kids. It is a lot more difficult to do but not impossible.
How do you explain that many of the worst incidents of mass murder using guns was perpetrated by young middle to upper middle class white boys?

I think we are in total agreement on that point and I said as much. Having a solid family space leads to strong peer choices and dynamics, ultimately leading to personal success most often. When parents have the capacity to love, support, lead and engage their kids you always get something good out of this.

For the majority of the impoverished, working odd shifts, night shifts, having to commute long hours to get to jobs etc. all make it hard for poor parents to have the physical time to play an active role in their kids' lives. It's an intrinsic part of the cycle of poverty. No where else is it more important for communities to raise the child, consequently. But then what do you do if there are no real resources in the community to help guide kids to make better choices when their community is peppered with crime, drugs, addictions, violence, teen pregnancy, gangs, mental health issues and abuse? Now there are a host of other interconnected issues that make it hard for families to stay together, let alone stay strong.

Obviously those middle class white youth come from places where parents, for their own reasons, were also not able to lead, love, support or engage their youth. Youth who commit violence, mass murder and in some cases of teen suicide, almost always suffer inside spaces of twisted family dynamics or complete disconnection between parents and their kids.

 

[Burnt State]

Please name me one US ghetto that was built for the poor. BTW, what you are referring to, government assisted housing, exists in EVERY major city in the USA. It's you that does not know WTF you are going on about. Get a clue. Ghettos are NOT housing projects Sir. They are cities that are in economic and moral blight. What a load of crap.

• Any housing where the city plan is to segregate by class be they the ridiculous experiment of miles of apartment complexes or assisted housing etc.
• All Aboriginal and Indiginous reserves built by and enforced by the past and current colonists
• Rural and remote regional communities whose manufacturing services are no longer needed and the whole town is now a soup kitchen
• Any time someone puts up a gate or wall around their community to keep the "inferior" & dangerous lower classes
• Black communities in the post slavery era that were not just unsupported but tormented, disrupted and destroyed
• Fleeing to the suburbs to protect privilege leaving blight and underfunded schools, health care and economic options in their wake.

Like Muadib said, if you've never really lived poor, surrounded by violence and "moral blight" there's little judgment anyone can make against another human being. Yes you can put people in jail for committing crimes but if you don't lend out a hand to help out another fellow human being in peril then you might as well damn your mom. What holds us back as a puny type one species, and probably why ET won't talk to us, is because we're a "primitive, mysoginistic, backwards planet!" (or so said Christopher O'Brien on a Paracast episode once upon a time, who also instigated this thread and then what? Perhaps you were too busy watching the battle from the sidelines)

 

[Burnt State]

I just finished reading through the pages of the onslaught - I didn't see those till after I responded in kind to previous posts. I think the line that sticks with me is still the one about blaming single moms for their own plight - reminded me a lot of an argument I had in a bar once as a teenager with my dad and a bunch of his soccer buddies. I did ultimately manage to convince my dad and some of my other patriarchal, paternalist teammates that a man screwing off after impregnating someone has a lot to own up for and creates social distress with many irrevocable consequences.

But the idea of blaming the poor for their own plight is like blaming racism on people who are victims of it. Why not sterilize those moms after you put them in the camps, and then who else? After those welfare moms are packed into the camps who will be next? That whole idea just was too scary to contemplate. I'm always surprised at how individual politics can create the most vast of gulfs between people.

 

[Randall]

I think we are at the point of critical mass in this country. The polarization is so profound that it is almost impossible to get anything accomplished.

Obama certainly wouldn't argue that point.

I think that at some level socialism eventually becomes unfair and empties our treasury.

Seems like the present system's done a pretty good job of that already ( More here ).

If I am a successful businessman I should be entitled to my money and I shouldn't have to pay any more than the same percentages everyone else pays. If it's 15% then 15% of whatever I made. Why should I be penalized for my hard work and success?

On one hand, there is some rationale to support Laissez-faire capitalism, and being forced to give away your earnings to people who haven't earned it has a bad taste. However the flip-side is called social responsibility, the idea being that those who are significantly more fortunate should want to make an effort to help those who are significantly less fortunate. Why? Because they can and it's the right thing to do. Successful businessmen like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't seem to have a problem with this concept, and I only wish I were in their league so that I could enjoy paying their level of taxes to help out the less fortunate.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I just finished reading through the pages of the onslaught - I didn't see those till after I responded in kind to previous posts. I think the line that sticks with me is still the one about blaming single moms for their own plight - reminded me a lot of an argument I had in a bar once as a teenager with my dad and a bunch of his soccer buddies. I did ultimately manage to convince my dad and some of my other patriarchal, paternalist teammates that a man screwing off after impregnating someone has a lot to own up for and creates social distress with many irrevocable consequences.

But the idea of blaming the poor for their own plight is like blaming racism on people who are victims of it. Why not sterilize those moms after you put them in the camps, and then who else? After those welfare moms are packed into the camps who will be next? That whole idea just was too scary to contemplate. I'm always surprised at how individual politics can create the most vast of gulfs between people.

Burnt,
I think that I must tread carefully here. I am not going to get into it, but I doubt SERIOUSLY that anyone on this forum has seen the ghetto anymore so up close and personal than myself.

When statements are made to the the effect that no one should comment "without being poor experienced", what does that REALLY say about that person making such a request? It states that they must first needfully express that they are qualified to choose in such cases, and that they are aware of who is not qualified to make a decision with respect to whatever it is they are weakly siding with. So much for logic and the rest of the LAWS that apply within nature. We'll keep the weak fit and teach the strong how to not give a shit, even resent the other "less fortunate" by taking the money out of the strong's pocket and giving it to the weak. That's WRONG. Show me in nature where that takes place. The rest of nature is perfect, what about welfare? How could welfare be absent from nature???? Because it's absolutely STUPID, UNPRODUCTIVE, and thoroughly goes against the laws of nature and common sense, that's why.

If all the social baby sitting mentalities out there can do is exclude rationale other than those in the poor clique, or worse, those that just simply disagree with them, they are lost before the journey is began. Those people in the ghettos (ghettos being the majority of the inner cities that minorities have RUINED FOR THEMSELVES & EVERYONE ELSE in the USA), have the EXACT same choices when the get their ass out of bed that any of the rest of us do. The woman that has seven illegitimate kids and gets a 3000.oo a month welfare check is a fricken opportunist. ANYONE that receives welfare without a SERIOUS handicap is an opportunist IMO.

A helping hand when someone's kids are actually hungry is one thing, an outright career is quite another, and that is EXACTLY what welfare has become in the USA, a career for MANY.

 

[Randall]

Show me in nature where that takes place. The rest of nature is perfect, what about welfare? How could welfare be absent from nature???? Because it's absolutely STUPID, UNPRODUCTIVE, and thoroughly goes against the laws of nature and common sense, that's why.

In nature most animals instinctively protect their relatively helpless and unproductive young, often going to great lengths, even personal sacrifice to do so. But even if it weren't for this one glaring example in the natural world, by what rationale should we reduce ourselves to the level of animals in order to justify cruelty through lack of social responsibility? We're supposed to be better than that, and we should be better than that.

Those people in the ghettos (ghettos being the majority of the inner cities that minorities have RUINED FOR THEMSELVES & EVERYONE ELSE in the USA), have the EXACT same choices when the get their ass out of bed that any of the rest of us do.

That's a gross oversimplification.

The woman that has seven illegitimate kids and gets a 3000.oo a month welfare check is a fricken opportunist. ANYONE that receives welfare without a SERIOUS handicap is an opportunist IMO. A helping hand when someone's kids are actually hungry is one thing, an outright career is quite another, and that is EXACTLY what welfare has become in the USA, a career for MANY.

That is an equally valid example social irresponsibility on the bottom end, and it shouldn't be used to justify social irresponsibility on the top end. Also no matter how you look at it, it's not the children's fault. It's simply wrong to allow them suffer because of the irresponsibility of their parents.

 

[Jeff Davis]

In nature most animals instinctively protect their relatively helpless and unproductive young, often going to great lengths, even personal sacrifice to do so. But even if it weren't for this one glaring example in the natural world, by what rationale should we reduce ourselves to the level of animals in order to justify cruelty through lack of social responsibility? We're supposed to be better than that, and we should be better than that.

That's a gross oversimplification.

That is an equally valid example social irresponsibility on the bottom end, and it shouldn't be used to justify social irresponsibility on the top end. Also no matter how you look at it, it's not the children's fault. It's wrong to allow them suffer because of the irresponsibility of their parents.

I never stated that we shouldn't help others Ufology. Please quote where I have stated as much. How much do animals get in terms of welfare anyhow? Do they get food stamps too? Your example is thoroughly flawed. Help does NOT equal the welfare program. Not in the least.

Of course it's an "oversimplification". This is a forum. It's a post. Anything else unclear? It's also the TRUTH.

Your last paragraph is nothing but word fruit salad. The truth is the truth and when the least of it gets in the way, you enjoy making salad and not much sense.

 

[Randall]

I never stated that we shouldn't help others Ufology. Please quote where I have stated as much.

If helping others less fortunate isn't what you meant by a "welfare program" but you actually meant an actual "welfare program" in nature you're just being obtuse. We're the only animals in nature that have that capacity, so of course your not going to find it in nature, and it has nothing to do with your rant about it "stupid or unproductive".

How much do animals get in terms of welfare anyhow? Do they get food stamps too? Your example is thoroughly flawed. Help does NOT equal the welfare program. Not in the least.

What is that? Just pure nonsense for the sake of flaming the thread perhaps?

Of course it's an "oversimplification". This is a forum. It's a post. Anything else unclear? It's also the TRUTH.

Why are you suddenly acting out?

Your last paragraph is nothing but word fruit salad. The truth is the truth and when the least of it gets in the way, you enjoy making salad and not much sense.

So is it that you don't think that the woman who has seven illegitimate kids and gets a 3000.oo a month welfare check isn't socially irresponsible? Or perhaps you think the kids should be allowed to suffer? I'm not really clear on which one you don't agree with. The "word salad" comment is just a cop out that tells me you've offhandedly dismissed the comment rather than put any thought into it.