I get conservative guys point about public assistance

[DAPUNISHER]

And yet what I made this point, Kinev decided to deflect it and turn it into "and how much do YOU help?" (And the answer turned out to be "a hell of a lot more than Kinev suspected").

How do we get this point across to the people who most need to see it?

It is not a deflection, it is his/her strong conviction. That being, if you want them helped, you do it. He/she does not give a shit, despite any platitudes to the contrary. Stop trying to make them participate in any semblance of altruism, like Scrooge, they already pay in, now fuck right off.

You will never make sociopaths, the self deluded, the atavistic channelers of our primitive progenitors, or those indoctrinated by appealing to their misanthropy, embrace your perspective. You live in a society driven by mass and conspicuous consumption, designed to teach you that your self worth is attached to the things you own. Giving any of that up to help keep poor kids fed and clothed, would reduce their own sense of worth, and we cannot have that.

 

[crashtech]

This debate seems oddly similar to arguments about parenting style. It seems to me that elements of both styles are necessary to some degree; some people need unconditional monetary support, and some people need an occasional kick in the pants to stay motivated. Actually there is an entire spectrum of need in between the extremes, including the occasional scofflaw that needs to be made an example of to keep the rest of us honest. Deciding who gets what in a fair way is that part that gets beyond tricky.

 

[Roflmouth]

The difference is that Dems are willing to pay higher taxes & support more redistribution in order to compensate for changes in the economy.

No, they're willing for everyone else to pay higher taxes in order to support their economically illiterate "restribution" schemes. Better luck next time.

 

[agent00f]

No, they're willing for everyone else to pay higher taxes in order to support their economically illiterate "restribution" schemes. Better luck next time.

Exquisite example of:

They already know what you're saying, they're just playing dumb because it comes off better than appearing wantonly degenerate. Eg. they know that "I'd rather give money to the rich even if the poor starve to death" is a losing argument in modern western society. Also keep in mind many of these people are "Christians".

 

[DAPUNISHER]

No, they're willing for everyone else to pay higher taxes in order to support their economically illiterate "restribution" schemes. Better luck next time.

Substanceless, rhetorical accusation, strong work. I am certain anyone on the fence on the issue was persuaded by the vitriol spewing.

 

[Roflmouth]

Your "they're just as bad!" routine is duly noted.It's where Righties go when confronted with the avaricious greed of who they adulate & follow.

I agree. "They're just as bad!" is a stupid argument. The left is many times worse than the right could ever dream of. Thanks for helping me point that out

 

[Roflmouth]

I won't even try to explain away your fantasies or strident self righteousness.

That's okay, no one's surprised that you're unable to argue against it

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I agree. "They're just as bad!" is a stupid argument. The left is many times worse than the right could ever dream of. Thanks for helping me point that out

Your intellect is astounding. You should have added infinity to shut down any further attempts to one up your dizzying debate skills.

 

[Roflmouth]

Some lack the ability to critically assess a problem that way. Or understand that incarceration and recidivism costs far more than addressing poverty in a holistic manner. Others support the prison industrial complex because it profits them, family, and/or friends, financially, to do so. Some are functional sociopaths, lacking empathy for others.

Or because it keeps criminals away from their victims, the rest of us.

 

[agent00f]

I agree. "They're just as bad!" is a stupid argument. The left is many times worse than the right could ever dream of. Thanks for helping me point that out

That's okay, no one's surprised that you're unable to argue against it

Or because it keeps criminals away from their victims, the rest of us.

Now that chucky ran away it's awful kind of you to pull double duty representing american conservatism. It's so much harder to make all your peers look bad without you guys.

 

[Roflmouth]

Now that chucky ran away it's awful kind of you to pull double duty representing american conservatism. It's so much harder to make all your peers look bad without you guys.

Substanceless, rhetorical accusation, strong work. I am certain anyone on the fence on the issue was persuaded by the vitriol spewing.

 

[agent00f]

Substanceless, rhetorical accusation, strong work. I am certain anyone on the fence on the issue was persuaded by the vitriol spewing.

You're arguably better than chucky at making conservatives look terrible. First it was getting rid of the muslims, now it's getting rid of the poors, when the other one mostly only ever ranted about black people.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Or because it keeps criminals away from their victims, the rest of us.

Blanket statement, appeal to emotion, and erroneous conclusion. The trifecta of fail.

1. Don't be scared homey.
2. Offenders frequently get out and commit more crimes, so much for keeping them away from you. Maybe if the focus was not punishment, those numbers would drop. We will not even go full ham on the topic of how minor offenders are conditioned and indoctrinated into much worse threats to society while doing their time either.
3. Choosing the term victim, while technically accurate, reflects your fear and insecurity. To help you understand how different perspective and disposition can be, I would have chosen the term target. Nuance of language can convey volumes that went unwritten or unsaid.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Substanceless, rhetorical accusation, strong work. I am certain anyone on the fence on the issue was persuaded by the vitriol spewing.

Glad you liked it

 

[agent00f]

Blanket statement, appeal to emotion, and erroneous conclusion. The trifecta of fail.

1. Don't be scared homey.
2. Offenders frequently get out and commit more crimes, so much for keeping them away from you. Maybe if the focus was not punishment, those numbers would drop. We will not even go full ham on the topic of how minor offenders are conditioned and indoctrinated into much worse threats to society while doing their time either.
3. Choosing the term victim, while technically accurate, reflects your fear and insecurity. To help you understand how different perspective and disposition can be, I would have chosen the term target. Nuance of language can convey volumes that went unwritten or unsaid.

He is right though that keeping Roflmouth sorts away from the rest of civilized society would make the world a better place.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

He is right though that keeping Roflmouth sorts away from the rest of civilized society would make the world a better place.

I disagree, right or wrong, diversity of thought and opinion are essential to a free and open society.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I disagree, right or wrong, diversity of thought and opinion are essential to a free and open society.

Stagnation leads to extinction. Diversity, for better or worse, must be maintained if we are to survive.

 

[agent00f]

I disagree, right or wrong, diversity of thought and opinion are essential to a free and open society.

Stagnation leads to extinction. Diversity, for better or worse, must be maintained if we are to survive.

It was more a description of the resulting reality if his ideology were used on himself. Sort of like if arabs/muslims were to go around killing the most gratuitously conservative elements of western society, ie him.

In any case though, opinions do lead to votes and elections do have consequences.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

It was more a description of the resulting reality if his ideology were used on himself. Sort of like if arabs/muslims were to go around killing the most gratuitously conservative elements of western society, ie him.

In any case though, opinions do lead to votes and elections do have consequences.

I am not certain you are implying what I think you are. But if I am correct, my response is this: Once you lose the high ground it is a long, difficult, climb, getting it back. And then there is the argument to be made - slippery slope is slippery. Besides we are maybe 20-30 years from a different, better, country. All the old people will have died off, and most of their stupid mysticism and prejudices will go with them. The number of younger people that embrace their nonsense is shrinking, and they will be a quaint little minority some day. Hopefully in the above timeframe.

If not I do have an exit strategy. I will move on to happier hunting grounds, if the self proclaimed conservative christians, whom's actions refute everything those terms should stand for, hold sway much longer.

 

[agent00f]

I am not certain you are implying what I think you are. But if I am correct, my response is this: Once you lose the high ground it is a long, difficult, climb, getting it back. And then there is the argument to be made - slippery slope is slippery. Besides we are maybe 20-30 years from a different, better, country. All the old people will have died off, and most of their stupid mysticism and prejudices will go with them. The number of younger people that embrace their nonsense is shrinking, and they will be a quaint little minority some day. Hopefully in the above timeframe.

If not I do have an exit strategy. I will move on to happier hunting grounds, if the self proclaimed conservative christians, whom's actions refute everything those terms should stand for, hold sway much longer.

Generally speaking, reciprocating aka tit-for-tat strategies are mathematically & empirical proven to be most effective, in comparison to a fixed reaction eg. moral high ground. I think everyone can see that perpetually egalitarian liberals often get the short end of the stick when dealing with types always seeking to exploit weakness, because they're not willing to leverage their strengths and take the steps to avoid getting taken advantage of.

 

[Zaap]

Like any of the santamonious complete asshole liberals spewing utter bullshit in this thread thumbing down your nose about the supposed charity of others goes to rural America and helps anyone out. STFU already with the high horse bullshit.

Every other thread the biggest assholes amoung you are dismissing at least half your fellow countrymen as idiot hicks because they don't tend to vote for your preferred puppetmasters. Do shove the sanctimony up your self-righteous asses... no one is fooled that any of you left loons are any great helpers of the rural poor.

Liberals are not statistically more charitable than conservatives either... you can shove that fact straight up next to puffed up sanctimony.

Also: to the lame excuses about all of these types just becoming crimminals unless a politician fleeces someone else and pretends to give it to poor people... there's not a significantly higher crime rate in rural and small town America vs. larger urban areas. Pretty obvious to most, but never facts get in the way of a good high-horse hyporcrite rant!

 

[Jhhnn]

never facts get in the way of a good high-horse hyporcrite rant!

You never do.

 

[Zaap]

Look there's flush... white Knight of the rural poor...


...when he isn't taking a shit on their heads that is!

 

[Roflmouth]

You're arguably better than chucky at making conservatives look terrible. First it was getting rid of the muslims, now it's getting rid of the poors, when the other one mostly only ever ranted about black people.

You mean like when you repeatedly called black people "darkies?" LOL

 

[Roflmouth]

Liberals are not statistically more charitable than conservatives either...

Sure they are. Just with other people's money.