again, it still simplifies real life.
Actually you misconstrue the point. It simplifies a pretty simple issue - that many Democrats in their 'social welfare advocacy' seem to make no distinction between those who reap precisely what they sow and those who are victims of circumstances beyond their control.
I agree its a generalization, and all generalizations are both true and false, but again, the moral of the story is only that Mary is getting precisely the GPA SHE HAS EARNED. It does not speak of, nor suggest, nor imply, that Mary is pulling a GPA due to any other circumstance. It does not imply all social welfare programs and their recipients are undeserving, only that there is often on the part of social welfare advocates (typically Democrats) an overzealous concern for the welfare of those whom have nobody to blame for their own situation but themselves because their situation is wholly the result of foolish or stupid choices made by them and nobody else.
the free rider problem has ALWAYS existed and will always exist. The stockbroker that cheats, is he any less a free rider than the welfare bum?? the CPA that fudges books for large corporations, is he costing us any less money than the welfare bum?? Who costed our society more money, the welfare mothers or Arther Anderson??
It didn't cost me a nickel, except for the subsequent investigations and prosecutions. The last I checked, your tax contribution is not voluntary. Nor do you get to chose directly where each of your tax dollars are spent.
Investing my money in Enron or Worldcom is 100% voluntary. If anyone lost a penny to Arthur Andersen, they took a risk when they voluntarily invested in the companies with whom Andersen contracted. Like it or not, fraud and malfeasance IS part of the known risks any investor takes. If you had your life savings in one stock, well then you've taken the greatest investment risk known, and you reap the consequences of your high-risk investment decision.
But this is all an aside, a deflection of the issue at hand. I won't say it was deliberate, but it is definitely a distraction from the issue. What CPAs or Doctors or Lawyers or Nurses or Pharmacists or Police Officers or 7-Eleven clerks - anyone - does is irrelevant to this issue. You're distracting or deflecting attention away from THIS discussion by pointing to other 'bad' things. Carrot=>stick.
For example: I create a thread criticizing some flawed logic of Tom Daschle on a particular issue, and as your response, you don't agree or disagree, you don't articulate a point that has to do with Tom Daschle's logic, defend it or otherwise. Instead, you offer as some 'antidote' the flawed logic of a Republican to 'counter' my criticism of Tom Daschle.
Oh yeah? Well my dad can bench press more than your dad!
Oh yeah? Well my mom can bake better cookies than your mom!
Sorry, I'm not interested in your pissing match.