|
Turnquiet posted:Well obviously, but I guess people like Shimrra Jamaane didn't get the memo. I wouldn't consider my feelings "bigoted" but if so then consider it one of my many faults that I don't look too kindly toward those who would do all in their power to deny others rights.
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
tek79 posted:Mommy, why do the terrorists hate us? Speaking of this, is there any answer to "Obama is ashamed of America/won the Nobel Prize for apologizing for it/etc." other than pointing out what an idiotic non-issue it is?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 00:02
|
|
|
List off all the horrible poo poo the country has done and ask why they're proud of it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 00:06
|
|
|
Chunk posted:List off all the horrible poo poo the country has done and ask why they're proud of it? You say that as if they won't have an answer, that they might show some sign of self doubt even if they quickly recompose, stammer and leave. Oh no, they will have an answer that they are certain is right. It just will be a loving despicable one. For example: these are the people who will defend the millions of Vietnamese civilian deaths during the war with a retort of "Well they shouldn't have become communists then." So what exactly do you say to that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 00:18
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:You say that as if they won't have an answer, that they might show some sign of self doubt even if they quickly recompose, stammer and leave. Oh no, they will have an answer that they are certain is right. It just will be a loving despicable one. For example: these are the people who will defend the millions of Vietnamese civilian deaths during the war with a retort of "Well they shouldn't have become communists then." I still assert that Rev. Wright was correct with all the stuff he was attacked for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 00:20
|
|
|
This country won't ever even have the chance to get better until the reigning president says in a public address, point blank, that the country is not perfect and we have some things in our history to be ashamed of(And he can't just say slavery in reference to this) and we need to recognize these things to move on and improve. Too bad that will never happen since the American public and politicians on both sides of the aisle would be calling for his blood.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 00:25
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:This country won't ever get better until the reigning president says in a public address, point blank, that the country is not perfect and we have some things in our history to be ashamed of(And he can't just say slavery in reference to this) and we need to recognize that to improve. Didn't Carter get pretty close to that, and it completely cost him a chance at re-election?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 00:26
|
|
|
Chunk posted:Didn't Carter get pretty close to that, and it completely cost him a chance at re-election? Pretty much, as far as I know. Either way it can't be a coincidence that a massive surge of blind nationalism occurred right through the Reagan presidency almost immediately upon election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 00:28
|
|
|
I've heard one person one claim that the United States government was justified in displacing the Indians, because they were violent. He was also a horrible excuse for a human being, and moved to some Eastern Europe country after Obama got elected because the taxes are lower there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 00:37
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I wouldn't consider my feelings "bigoted" but if so then consider it one of my many faults that I don't look too kindly toward those who would do all in their power to deny others rights. Comprehensive hatred of a group causes further hatred. Most Mormons are either not bigoted or at worst, are ignorant of their actions as "bigotry". You should hate deliberate bigotry but note that most people don't KNOW they're bigots, and therefore can be made to see their mistakes if you take a kind approach to them. I used to have libertarian views in high school, not bigotry per se but I believed in "well if you work hard then you'll do fine that's what America is all about!". It wasn't malevolent ignorance, just twisted idealism. But because people gently helped me see I was a loving retard by college, I had gone full blown socialist. So it does happen. It's just hating them by default will make them defensive and regress further into their cloistered world view. Just think about that is all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 01:23
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:I've heard one person one claim that the United States government was justified in displacing the Indians, because they were violent. He was also a horrible excuse for a human being, and moved to some Eastern Europe country after Obama got elected because the taxes are lower there. The conservatives in my family just kind of shrug that one off. Their attitude is "We needed the land, we fought a war for it, the Indians lost, they're lucky we let them still have reservations and some form of independent government." That's almost word-for-word the response I got the last time the issue came up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 16:33
|
|
|
Notahippie posted:The conservatives in my family just kind of shrug that one off. Their attitude is "We needed the land, we fought a war for it, the Indians lost, they're lucky we let them still have reservations and some form of independent government." That's almost word-for-word the response I got the last time the issue came up. They brushed it off with "We needed the land and we fought a war for it"?  That's like, pretty much word for word why it was morally wrong. That's hardly even white washing it, it's pretty much saying "yeah it was horrible but so what?" That's like saying "I needed the money so I killed that bank teller."
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 20:14
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:They brushed it off with "We needed the land and we fought a war for it"? Or like illegal immigrants come to the US because they need jobs. Well, y'know, except for the part where unlike Europeans Mexicans aren't bayonetting people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 20:16
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:They brushed it off with "We needed the land and we fought a war for it"? It's just another way of saying gently caress you, got mine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 20:41
|
|
|
Notahippie posted:It's just another way of saying gently caress you, got mine. It's just another way of saying Lebensraum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 21:13
|
|
|
BatteredFeltFedora posted:It's just another way of saying Lebensraum. Seriously. I think that's one of the few legitimate Hitler comparisons ever, at least in regards to that particular argument. "We needed the land, so... genocide. Oh well!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 23:21
|
|
|
Notahippie posted:The conservatives in my family just kind of shrug that one off. Their attitude is "We needed the land, we fought a war for it, the Indians lost, they're lucky we let them still have reservations and some form of independent government." That's almost word-for-word the response I got the last time the issue came up. I like this argument because instead of agreed upon, peaceful coexistence among all people's they are saying force of arms should determine who wins and therefore a revolution should occur.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 00:09
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:They brushed it off with "We needed the land and we fought a war for it"? Next time they make that argument just start taking their belongings. "I need it!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 00:15
|
|
|
I disagreed with a post on Facebook. I think I'm just going to be shouted down or ignored, I'm not arguing very well. Let me know if you have suggestions for better arguments, or just enjoy the show. I only know the girl who originally posted this as her status: some girl on facebook posted:quick poll: should there be mandatory drug testing for those receiving benefits from the state? Girl 1: Yes Girl 2: it depends on what kind of benefits but mostly yes Guy 1: For all adults receiving any sort of monetary compensation from state benefits there should be mandatory, as well as random drug testing allowed. So my answer is, Yes. Girl 3: Hell no lol more than half of [our state] smokes weed! Guy 1: Tons of people smoke weed, and that is fine with me, but not on tax payer money. I grew up in a rather unfortunate neighborhood, and I've seen stamps traded for drugs, even with the card now, its all too easy. Guy 2: Definitely. Do what u want but if it's coming out of taxpayer money, you better not be spending it on drugs. That money is meant to provide people with the bare essentials. Not drug testing would be like letting people use food stamps to buy liquor ME: who is going to pay for all these drug tests? OP: right, that is a drawback, it would initially take a lot of money to start up the testing but as with [Girl 3's] comment many people in [our state] smoke weed and are too stupid to give it up to keep benefits, so those people would be cut from benefits saving taxpayers a lot of money (probably saving more money than the cost of testing would be)-plus testing would create jobs. Guy 1: I'm with [OP] on that. I'd pay twice as much towards testing people who are suspected of abusing the system than I already do now without that in place. Guy 3: What about someone on disability (and actually disabled, not scamming the system) who smokes marijuana to deal with pain? OP: @guy 3-there would of course have to be some controls for those who use marijuana medicinally ME: do you think people who get parking tickets should be able to keep their benefits from the state? Guy 1: @guy 3, if it is legal, and it is prescribed, then its OK. If they are illegally doing drugs to cope with pain, then they are wrong. @[ME], if the person goes out of their way to obtain parking tickets, then no, they should not. If someone accidentally smokes weed and can prove it, they can keep their benefits, though both scenarios are extremely unlikely, I'd try a better scenario for your argument. ME: ok yeah, that makes perfect sense. after all, our legal system is based around people needing to prove their innocence. -------- Don't you hate it when you accidentally smoke weed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 02:55
|
|
|
We can't have this half penny go towards drugs. The thirty dollars spent on to bombs dropped on MUSLIMS, on the other hand, keeps our country strong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 04:16
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Ronald Reagan http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/gopelka/2010/11/15/would-you-buy-obamacare-from-sheriff-andy-taylor/ "Would you buy Obamacare from sheriff Andy Taylor?" Not so much Matlock these days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 04:56
|
|
|
who is spain posted:I disagreed with a post on Facebook. I think I'm just going to be shouted down or ignored, I'm not arguing very well. Let me know if you have suggestions for better arguments, or just enjoy the show. To start with, I don't really have a problem with drug testing for people who receive welfare benefits, however, I am well aware of the problems inherent with such a position; and, that being said, I don't think anything these people are saying is crazy and really doesn't belong in this thread. So beyond that, the guy isn't claiming that people accidentally smoke pot, but rather that someone who accidentally gets a parking ticket is roughly equivalent to someone who accidentally smokes pot. i.e. People can make mistakes and commit certain crimes, parking violations, but that it requires an actual effort to use drugs. Now "accidentally smoking pot" is unlikely, but the case of someone who gets slipped a mickey finn in their drink, gets drug tested, and then loses their benefits could be an actual issue. Also, you're arguing a straw man. If someone tests positive for marijuana in their system, theoretically their guilt in a crime has already been established. After that, it's up to them to prove that that is not evidence of complicity of a crime. You'd probably be better off arguing different points. Some possibilities: the high rates in false positives found in most drug testing techniques, should recipients of corporate welfare (banking executives and the like) be drug tested, if someone loses their benefits what happens to their children who are not making a command decision to use drugs (I know, won't someone please think of the children?!), and you might point out the costs in terms of those who test positive: incarceration and rehabilitation programs cost money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 06:01
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:should recipients of corporate welfare (banking executives and the like) be drug tested That's a great point, I hadn't thought of that. Although I could see someone quickly coming back that they don't support that kind of government spending in the first place either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 06:09
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:To start with, I don't really have a problem with drug testing for people who receive welfare benefits, Alright I'm just gonna ask. Why does the fact that people smoke weed bother you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 06:09
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Alright I'm just gonna ask. Why does the fact that people smoke weed bother you? At least be fair about it. He specifically stated that he is referring to people spending welfare money on drugs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 06:14
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Alright I'm just gonna ask. Why does the fact that people smoke weed bother you? I don't even care that much if people smoking weed bothers you. Why do people smoking weed bother you to such an extent that you are willing to take away their benefits, whose purpose is to provide the bare essentials. Basically, why are you willing to let someone starve because he smokes weed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 14:42
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:I don't think anything these people are saying is crazy and really doesn't belong in this thread. At the end of the day you and those people are making the same argument. You're saying having a drug problem, makes you unworthy of receiving basic loving sustenance. Who gives a poo poo if someone is going to sell their food stamps for meth, you know what I prefer that to some woman being beat up and robbed trying to make 20 dollars street-walking because she has a drug addiction, you know, a loving illness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 14:51
|
|
|
Coitus_Interruptus posted:I prefer that to some woman being beat up and robbed trying to make 20 dollars street-walking because she has a drug addiction, you know, a loving illness. I don't agree with drug testing people receiving benefits, but let's not paint somebody as a victim for making poor choices. Drug addiction isn't an illness like that pops up out of nowhere. I have empathy for drug addicts, but I think portraying them as completely blameless is stupid. I've got a lot of close family members that struggle with addiction, and it is terribly sad. However, nobody forced any of them to snort oxycontin or stick the needle in their veins. In the end though, it doesn't matter who is to blame. The situation sucks for everybody. Thenipwax fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Nov 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 16:46
|
|
|
Thenipwax posted:I don't agree with drug testing people receiving benefits, but let's not paint somebody as a victim for making poor choices. Drug addiction isn't an illness like that pops up out of nowhere. I have empathy for drug addicts, but I think portraying them as completely blameless is stupid. I don't give two shits about blame, or how someone got to be addicted. Bottom line is that once you are addicted, you're sick and you need help not punishment. Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Nov 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
But, when it is all said and done, it is still the government drug testing its citizens so they are allowed to use its services. That would be like drug testing every time you wanted to check out a library book. Perhaps if the government actually aided in addiction recovery (perhaps as an addendum to the welfare program) rather than throwing addicts in jail, this wouldn't be an epidemic. Also, "I've seen stamps traded for drugs, even with the card now, its all too easy." is total bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
"I've totally seen food stamps traded for sex. We need to implement tests to make sure noone that is on welfare is engaging in sexual acts. These people are poor and meant to be miserable, it's a crime that they're having fun while taking my money." If the point is about people committing crimes while receiving benefits it's retarded to restrict it to drug crime. If it's about people finding some means of enjoying themselves then it's pretty much a "poor people deserve to be punished!" line of thinking that leads pretty quickly to, "If you want to receive benefits you have to spend 4 hours a day breaking rocks in order to stop freeloading." It's not on the level of retardation most political chain emails throw themselves into, although that makes it somewhat more insidious since it dresses up a hateful motive in nice moral clothing. After all why should people use your money to commit crimes? It's not really the important issue nor the most helpful way of looking at things but it's got a strong individual appeal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 18:41
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Alright I'm just gonna ask. Why does the fact that people smoke weed bother you? Because God said it, I believe it, that settles it. No, I'm just kidding. My issue is this: presumably, welfare benefits are a form of assistance to help one get back on their feet. People on drugs probably are not capable (or, at least, are less capable) of getting back on their feet. Therefore, one should nip the problem in the bud, have drug testing, then for people who are on drugs be put through a program to get them clean, which will make them more productive and beneficial to society. Beyond that, I don't have a problem with putting stipulations on the welfare money. Money given to corporations to help them survive come (or at least should come) with strings attached. Money which should be used to provide needful things should not be used for luxury items like drugs, CEO bonuses, etc. but rather food, health care, transportation, and the like. Spending it on drugs is a total misuse of a system that's already woefully short of funds. I guess there's also the fact that my job regularly drug tests me and if I failed, I wouldn't be allowed to continue working there, but that's really more of an emotional feeling than any sort of rational position. Maybe it's easier for me to whine about it because I'm not a citizen and wouldn't be able to draw benefits here in the U.S. no matter what I do, but oh well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 18:53
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:No, I'm just kidding. My issue is this: presumably, welfare benefits are a form of assistance to help one get back on their feet. Drug addicts need a lot of help getting back on their feet.  Dopilsya posted:People on drugs probably are not capable (or, at least, are less capable) of getting back on their feet. Therefore, one should nip the problem in the bud, have drug testing, then for people who are on drugs be put through a program to get them clean, which will make them more productive and beneficial to society. Boy it would be great if the world worked like that but it doesn't. Drug addicts aren't rational people they aren't going to go in, test, and then go in a program to get welfare benefits. They are just going to avoid that program completely, they are going to steal, beg, prostitute themselves. You cannot motivate a drug addict to seek treatment with the carrot of welfare benefits anymore than you can with the stick of ultimatums like "youll never see your kids again" it just doesn't work. These people suffer from one of the most harmful and insidious illnesses you can have and we need to provide them outlets for help, as well as the ability to have their basic needs addressed without ridiculous stipulations that are just going to push them away and render our aid programs useless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
^^^^^^^ Thanks for pre-refuting half of what I said while I was writing this. I just worry that the basic needs of the children will not be met no matter how you go about it until the drug problem is dealt with. York_M_Chan posted:
My sister-in-law sells her stamps for drugs. She'll go into the the grocery with someone, buy their stuff and get some fraction of the total in cash, then use the cash for drugs. I'm not saying I feeling strongly either way about the discussion, but I just wanted to point out that it isn't necessarily as simple as handing your food stamp card to your dealer and walking away with some meth. I know that's anecdotal, but I doubt she's the only person who's figured that out. I suppose for the record, I think drug testing combined with a free treatment program if you test positive (for harder, addictive drugs, not pot) as a prerequisite for welfare benefits isn't that unreasonable. If they're spending the money on drugs instead of food for their kids then we should probably try to fix the drug problem first, to make sure the money is going where it should be going. Edit for below: Gotcha, sorry, I thought you were trying to claim it doesn't happen. I've seen the comment in question before (where I'm from it spread through my friend list pretty quickly) and I agree that whoever started it is probably full of poo poo, it's still worthy of discussion though. Broken watch and all that. Parity Bit fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Nov 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 19:42
|
|
|
Parity Bit posted:My sister-in-law sells her stamps for drugs. She'll go into the the grocery with someone, buy their stuff and get some fraction of the total in cash, then use the cash for drugs. Sorry, I should have been more specific. It is bullshit that this guy saw it... that comment just reeks of "I assume it happens so I will state that I saw it happen"
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 19:50
|
|
|
Coitus_Interruptus posted:Drug addicts need a lot of help getting back on their feet. Firstly, it's incredibly disingenuous for you (and the White House, it would seem) to equate drug abuse, which generally requires deliberate action, with an illness. People do make choices and when they make bad choices, yes they should be helped, but they also bear the responsibility for their situation. Not forcing them to deal with any consequences only enables the addiction which is harmful to society. People on welfare who are drug abusers should be forced (and I mean it, by force, if necessary) into a program. They shouldn't get a choice. If they steal, beg, or go into prostitution, then they get arrested for those crimes and get forced into a program. Since you're using the disease metaphor, one shouldn't allow people with tuberculosis to travel around the countryside without treatment, whether they want the treatment or not. You might say this is authoritarian. I would agree, but I don't categorically consider authoritarian policies to be bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:Firstly, it's incredibly disingenuous for you (and the White House, it would seem) to equate drug abuse, which generally requires deliberate action, with an illness. People do make choices and when they make bad choices, yes they should be helped, but they also bear the responsibility for their situation. Not forcing them to deal with any consequences only enables the addiction which is harmful to society. Drug Addiction is horrific. The idea that we need to add extra consequences to make it sufficiently miserable enough for people to understand they made a mistake or that offering them unconditional assistance somehow absolves them of responsibility is loving insane. When a 17 year old girl sucks her first old greasy cock for 20 dollars, she's paid the price for her decision to try meth and we don't need to add consequences so you can feel that they've been properly punished. Making her pee in a cup so she can have welfare benefits isn't going to help her. Especially because if she's an addict she's just not going to pee in the cup, meaning you're not helping anyone. Dopilsya posted:People on welfare who are drug abusers should be forced (and I mean it, by force, if necessary) into a program. They shouldn't get a choice. If they steal, beg, or go into prostitution, then they get arrested for those crimes and get forced into a program. Except for forcing people into programs doesn't loving work. Theres a reason modern treatment hinges on things like interventions and other methods of helping a person make the decision to fight their addiction themselves. Forcing people into treatment isn't going to help them and the goal of these programs should be to help people. Dopilsya posted:Since you're using the disease metaphor, one shouldn't allow people with tuberculosis to travel around the countryside without treatment, whether they want the treatment or not. Seriously? I must have missed the part where Meth addicts need to be quarantined because it can be transmitted through the air. Dopilsya posted:You might say this is authoritarian. The biggest problem isn't that it authoritarian its that it doesn't work. While you're willing to help, you're also working from this twisted position that these people are bad, or that they somehow deserve it, and that any indecency or cruelty we enact on them through our help is perfectly OK because well, gee golly gosh, they chose to use drugs. You keep bringing up their choice as if it bears any relevance to our social responsibility to help them. Its the exact same thing people do to deny anyone welfare services, its dangerously close to a just world fallacy and you're only a step or two away from saying they don't deserve any help Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Nov 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:forcing them to deal with consequences How, exactly, will this help anything, except in making you feel better? Dopilsya posted:People on welfare who are drug abusers should be forced (and I mean it, by force, if necessary) into a program. What happens when people fail? Will you put them through it again hoping for a different outcome from the same inputs? Are you going to jail them? Shoot them? Dopilsya posted:Since you're using the disease metaphor, one shouldn't allow people with tuberculosis to travel around the countryside without treatment, whether they want the treatment or not. Funny, I'm pretty sure tuberculosis patients are in fact not subject to any criminal sanction in this country. Dopilsya posted:You might say this is authoritarian. I would agree, but I don't categorically consider authoritarian policies to be bad. What if I consider it stupid? Do you consider stupid policies to be bad? Here's some food for thought: "authoritarian" describes a political system. There's a reason democratic countries tend not to like "authoritarian" policies. A hint: it has to do with a minority (you) projecting their judgments on others' lives with no regard for their opinion. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Nov 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 20:47
|
|
|
My State Legislature has this battle every legislative session. I'm completely 100% against drug testing welfare recipients for pretty much all the reasons stated. I also completely support treatment versus punishment when it comes to basically all crime. That being said, and with the caveat that I don't generally support these drug laws, this is the argument that I make with my crazy conservative family and it generally makes them at least stop and think and agree: We already have laws against these crimes. We have laws against drug use and abuse. If someone is using drugs, regardless of welfare status, they are already committing a crime. Let those laws take care of those offenders. There's no point in creating more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
Look I dont think you understand those are my tax dollars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2010 06:01
|
|