The Tavern

[EquALLity]

PC Principal.

Very few people are advocating PC principal level political correctness.

Well, survival of the fittest.

...Is an evolutionary process that has nothing to do with morality.

It's like saying, "Volcanoes erupt in nature, therefore it's good to blow stuff up."

Just because survival of the fittest is part of evolution doesn't mean that's what we should base our society on. It's a deeply immoral concept to let people die who can't make it on their own.

We're deciding to keep everyone alive, even the unproductive. I'm no sure, but I don't think any advancements can be made with people who aren't bothering to do anything.

Those people have existed throughout all of humanity. Have we made no advancements in all of our existence as a species?

For the record, when I refer to"the weak", it doesn't just apply to those on welfare.

Ok, but that is a group that you're attacking.

Who else are you referring to?

Plus, if brim is right, a minimum wage job can run you pretty well

I'm going to respond to that later. But I don't think he was factoring in families with a worker on minimum wage; I think he was talking about individuals, which is a very incomplete picture.

(even though here in New York they're raising it by 5 bucks. Guess who's paying for it?

If you're not willing to pay a little bit more to buy stuff so that employees can have a living wage, then I don't know what to tell you.

as long as you don't make bad decisions. I'm not against welfare as a whole. Welfare is there you keep you alive until you find work, from my understanding. Living off it to me is deplorable.

What do you mean by bad decisions?

Everyone makes bad decisions. That doesn't mean we should let them die.

Like I pointed out before, most families that receive food stamps have at least one person in the family who works. Most people on welfare are not living off it, and those who don't have a job and need it to survive aren't jobless by choice. It's a myth that there's this widespread issue of people taking advantage of welfare like that. It just doesn't make sense, because nobody wants to live off food stamps.

Like I said, there's no motive for people to take advantage of the system that would explain it happening in any significant way. So people on welfare are not the problem.

I was?

Yeah, and you still are.

A lot of people are on welfare, yeah. But according to you, they aren't the problem- the people not looking for work who are on welfare are the problem. These statistics don't apply to those people.

Yes, to the former, and why not to the latter.

Your statistics are about ALL people on welfare.

You said: If my research is correct, about 35% of Murkans live on welfare.
Now about the percentage of tax dollars that goes to welfare, I'm not so sure. Many sources I have read have contradicting claims, but 2 out of the 3 that I looked up say it's about 12%. From some other research, it says that the average middle-class citizen gets about 35% of their annual salary taxed. Now to do some math that I have no interest in doing.. I'll get back to you on that.

I said that people who aren't looking for work on welfare are a tiny minority of people, and you responded by telling me a lot of people are on welfare, as if all of them aren't looking for work as evidence that this is a widespread issue.

That is probably spawned from bad decision making, as brim pointed out. I've read somewhere that the poor tend to have bigger families due to a lack of education (which actually explains a lot). Then again I've also read that starlight gives you cancer, so who knows.

So according to you, if someone makes the decision to have kids while poor, that person shouldn't receive welfare because it was a bad decision.

That's horrible. You want to not only make the people who had kids suffer, but the innocent children are going to suffer as well.

Then why not explain to me where it goes?

Most of the families on welfare have at least one worker in the house.

And for those who don't, like I said, they're not jobless by choice.

I didn't say joking.

You said if two 'good buddies' are doing 'rough play', which sounds like joking around.
If they're not, and there's violence involved, then of course the school should be involved. It's assault.

To clarify, what's a situation where you don't think the school should intervene in terms of bullying?
No sarcasm, since I apparently am really bad at detecting that.

[EquALLity]

Raising the minimum wage will just make things more expensive at the same time, because the people providing those services or making the goods are being paid more. It doesn't actually fix anything. It will also increase automation, and force companies to hire more qualified workers at a larger wage displacing several less qualified ones: it will exacerbate the problem.

1) Are you saying that prices will raise due to the fact that people have more money to spend due to higher wages? And therefore, because people have to spend more money, that it'll hurt minimum wage workers?
That's an interesting point I've never heard (usually it's just "the prices will increase and I personally don't want to pay more, and I don't really care about the workers".).
If so, do you have a source for this?

2) I'm aware of the automation problem. Maybe the government should just make it illegal for businesses to do that.

Also:
1) What do you think of the idea that having more money from a higher wage will let you contribute to, and thereby stimulate, the economy?
2) What do you think about that low wages from companies like Wal-Mart cause people to go on welfare, which ends up making taxpayers essentially subsidize those corporations unnecessarily?

40 hours a week * 4 weeks * $7.25 * 12 = $13,920 a year. Minus 6.2% for the employee's share of SS = $13,056.96. The standard deduction is $6,300. $6,756.96 is taxable income, most of that should be taxed at about 10% for the bottom bracket, for $675.70 in taxes. That leaves $12,381.26 a year, or $1,031.77 a month. It's not difficult to find a one bedroom apartment (crappy, but liveable) for $600 a month, and if you're smart you can split that with a roommate. Even if you don't, utilities and food come in easily under budget if you're frugal. It's not hard to save a thousand dollars a year, and you should be able to save four times that.

I don't understand some of what you're doing here, but this is about individuals, not families.

But even regarding individuals, see this: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/31/cost-of- ... rkers.html

A new Economic Policy Institute report finds that, no matter where they live in the United States, minimum wage workers earn far less than they need to make ends meet

While the annual cost of living alone in Memphis with no children, for example, is about $27,000, a full-time minimum wage employee there earns just $15,080 a year, according to EPI. The disparity is much larger in high-cost areas such as New York City, where a full-time minimum wage employee earns $18,200 a year before taxes but the annual cost of living for one adult with no children is more than $43,000.

Making bad choices like taking on debt or buying a car when you can't afford one (to deal with additional payments, in addition to insurance, repairs, and gas), or having a kid when you can't afford it can foil upward mobility. If somebody makes good choices, though, there's nothing to stop that person from rising out of poverty (as immigrant families often do).

How are you going to get a good education if you're poor without taking on debt? And what if you're in an area with little public transportation (suburbs)?

About having social programs on money management, that sounds like a good idea too. Though it won't solve the problem that many people are in due to already having kids.

[Red]

Holy crap, took ya' long enough.

Very few people are advocating PC principal level political correctness.

I know he's a satire. I was referring to intersectionaliteses and whatnot.

...Is an evolutionary process that has nothing to do with morality.

Oh, we're introducing morality now?
Believe it or not, you may not believe this, but I don't like saying these things. I don't like saying the weak should die. But depending on the situations, I am more concerned with the truth. Sure, the truth and morality go hand and hand with each other under some circumstances (ie veganism), but in some situations, the truth has more value, and in some other situations, morality does. Letting the weak die for the advancement of humanity? My wager is on the truth.

And plus, what makes humans exempt from Darwinism? The species has to be smart and strong enough or else it will die off. The smartest and strongest live, and the weakest die off. Humans for some reason decided just to keep everyone alive, even the weak and unproductive. Humans have evolved to require intelligence more, but that's not really important to this discussion.

It's like saying, "Volcanoes erupt in nature, therefore it's good to blow stuff up."

Wow, that is an obtuse misrepresentation. I'm not even sure what the hell that analogy has anything to do with survival of the fittest.

Just because survival of the fittest is part of evolution doesn't mean that's what we should base our society on. It's a deeply immoral concept to let people die who can't make it on their own.

I'm not saying it should be based on it, I'm just saying it must be considered, or at least be a factor in it.

Those people have existed throughout all of humanity. Have we made no advancements in all of our existence as a species?

And how can you be so sure of that? Plus, think of the Middle Ages. Literally no advancements were made in over 1000 years in Europe. By the way, I am not doubting that these people have existed. But don't you think we would have been just a teeny bit more advanced had we had more productive members of society? By the way, when I say productive, I'm not including people who work at factory farms or McDonalds. Morals do have a role in this field.

Who else are you referring to?

The lazy, the irresponsible, people who don't buckle their seat belt, the kids who run down the halls at school, etc..

I'm going to respond to that later. But I don't think he was factoring in families with a worker on minimum wage; I think he was talking about individuals, which is a very incomplete picture.

Why would people have a family if they only could get a minimum wage job? Unless they get fired, but if they don't have a minimum wage job, they must have some sort of skill that is valued for it be be paid more. I like thinking of work like supply and demand; the more experience and skill a job takes, not many people will have that certain skill, and thus, the demand for it will increase, meaning people will want to pay extra, and vice versa. For instance, a job like an architect may pay very well, because only a few have that in as a field of expertise. And a job like a busboy/girl will pay minimum, because any momo can move quickly and can move dishes into a tray.

If you're not willing to pay a little bit more to buy stuff so that employees can have a living wage, then I don't know what to tell you.

Now thinking about it, when you raise the minimum wage, no one really wins.
Refer to brim's answer. Let's make up a company, called RedAppleGP industries, and I own it, and all of my slaves work on minimum wage. When you raise the minimum wage, the consumer is going to have to pay extra for an apple, and I will have to raise the prices just so I can pay my employees while protecting my own economic interests. With these new prices, the consumer is not going to purchase apples from my company, and will find a company that is able to give a similar product, while selling their product for slightly less because they have less workers. I will attempt automation, so I can lay off a few workers and save me some extra dough. Those workers are now jobless. Or, another outcome can be that I no longer have sufficient customer service, and I can't pay all of my business taxes and such to the government, so I have to go bankrupt and go out of business, and all of the workers lose jobs. The other company that sells red apples is now the only one that sells red apples, meaning they will be laughing at me. Neither of us want that.

What do you mean by bad decisions?

Buying a car, having a family, getting an apartment that is so obviously out of their price range, etc..

Everyone makes bad decisions. That doesn't mean we should let them die.

Yeah, but most of the really major ones like the ones I listed above should be no-brainers. Yet some people make those decisions.

Like I pointed out before, most families that receive food stamps have at least one person in the family who works. Most people on welfare are not living off it, and those who don't have a job and need it to survive aren't jobless by choice. It's a myth that there's this widespread issue of people taking advantage of welfare like that. It just doesn't make sense, because nobody wants to live off food stamps.

So food stamps are welfare? Why the hell didn't you say so? This explains a lot.
Firstly, as I've said, I'm not against welfare as a whole, I'm against those who live off it or use it for an extended period of time. And I'm not saying a lot of people are doing it, but you gotta acknowledge the fact that some people do live off food stamps.

Like I said, there's no motive for people to take advantage of the system that would explain it happening in any significant way. So people on welfare are not the problem.

Laziness is something that comes to mind..

Yeah, and you still are.

I forgot. What was it again?

Your statistics are about ALL people on welfare.

I said I did sub-par research. What do you want from me?

I said that people who aren't looking for work on welfare are a tiny minority of people, and you responded by telling me a lot of people are on welfare, as if all of them aren't looking for work as evidence that this is a widespread issue.

I don't recall ever saying that.

So according to you, if someone makes the decision to have kids while poor, that person shouldn't receive welfare because it was a bad decision.

Yeah, pretty much. What's your point.

That's horrible. You want to not only make the people who had kids suffer, but the innocent children are going to suffer as well.

It was the parents fault, not the children. If worst comes to worst, they'll be put up for adoption.

Most of the families on welfare have at least one worker in the house.

okay? and?

And for those who don't, like I said, they're not jobless by choice.

Why not?

You said if two 'good buddies' are doing 'rough play', which sounds like joking around.
If they're not, and there's violence involved, then of course the school should be involved. It's assault.

When did I say it was at the school? It can be a playful fist fight, those exist.

To clarify, what's a situation where you don't think the school should intervene in terms of bullying?

If two mates are puttin' up the ol' mitts.

No sarcasm, since I apparently am really bad at detecting that.

I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time finding most comedies funny, since most of them rely on sarcasm.

[brimstoneSalad]

1) Are you saying that prices will raise due to the fact that people have more money to spend due to higher wages? And therefore, because people have to spend more money, that it'll hurt minimum wage workers?

Prices and wages rise roughly in proportion. The price goes up because it costs more to pay the employees.

Use a hypothetical haircut as an example.

Say it takes 30 minutes on average (including cut, cleanup, checkout, etc.).
So excluding overhead, the minimum cost of haircut = Hourly Wage / 2

If the hourly wage is $6 an hour, that's $3
If the hourly wage is $12 an hour, that's $6

You have twice as much money now, yay!
But now most things also cost twice as much... not so yay.

Even your rent (and the overhead for the haircut) will go up, because when wages rise there's more competition for apartments, etc. and the prices go up too, which means higher rent.
Raising the wage doesn't magically create more money.

It's not necessarily harmful, it's just... useless. A shell game.

2) I'm aware of the automation problem. Maybe the government should just make it illegal for businesses to do that.

Think about that a bit. That opens a huge can of worms, and is almost impossible from a regulation standpoint. It would probably require a constitutional amendment, at least. And then you've just created an automation black market, and a draconian branch of the government to track down and punish violators who dared use a food processor to chop carrots instead of hiring somebody.

It's unlikely that you can fight automation.

1) What do you think of the idea that having more money from a higher wage will let you contribute to, and thereby stimulate, the economy?

Shell game. I don't think it holds any merit.
If you actually create jobs that do something and add to the economy, however, that's totally true.

2) What do you think about that low wages from companies like Wal-Mart cause people to go on welfare, which ends up making taxpayers essentially subsidize those corporations unnecessarily?

Most of these people otherwise would not have jobs: a low wage attracts low skilled employees. Ever try to ask somebody at Walmart a question?
Most people who are not disabled or indigent do not remain at Walmart, they move up or move on once they have work experience.

You could make similar criticisms about "Goodwill".
I don't think there's any compelling evidence for those claims about Walmart: what they miss is the opportunity cost. Where would those people be if not working there? And for the shoppers: what would the situation be if we had the smaller stores instead, spread out so that it's harder for low income people to do their shopping, and there's less competition so the smaller stores can rip them off?

I don't understand some of what you're doing here, but this is about individuals, not families.

You get a larger tax break for having dependents, and your costs don't go up much. And there are certain welfare programs if you have children and are low income: It's substantial.

But even regarding individuals, see this: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/31/cost-of- ... rkers.html

A new Economic Policy Institute report finds that, no matter where they live in the United States, minimum wage workers earn far less than they need to make ends meet

While the annual cost of living alone in Memphis with no children, for example, is about $27,000, a full-time minimum wage employee there earns just $15,080 a year, according to EPI. The disparity is much larger in high-cost areas such as New York City, where a full-time minimum wage employee earns $18,200 a year before taxes but the annual cost of living for one adult with no children is more than $43,000.

I find these analyses to be ill informed. It's not hard to make a reasonable budget for those income levels.

How are you going to get a good education if you're poor without taking on debt? And what if you're in an area with little public transportation (suburbs)?

The working age poor do not typically live in areas with little public transit; that's more of a problem for the elderly. If they made bad decisions up to that point, they're basically screwed without retirement savings.
Most poor we're talking about live in apartment complexes, and low income housing, which are typically near bus routes.

If you live in a bad place, you have to work a bit harder to save to move.

Once you're near public transit, you'll have more time for education. There are numerous free classes online. Community college is also not expensive, and is a tax deduction. The poor should generally be looking at trade schools related to their jobs.
Most employers also have programs to pay for education which is relevant to the job.

About having social programs on money management, that sounds like a good idea too. Though it won't solve the problem that many people are in due to already having kids.

They made bad choices. They should give up their children to the state if they are not equipped to care for them, get their lives together, and then get their children back.
If you've made bad choices and aren't prepared to make certain sacrifices to fix the problem, then yes, you are stuck. My sympathy is limited. You painted yourself into a corner. We need to teach people how not to do that. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I'm not as concerned with "helping" stubborn people who won't help themselves. I'm all for informing them on how to help themselves, but it's up to them to do it.

That said: We DO need to stop these laws which place undue restrictions on at home child-care businesses.

[EquALLity]

I know he's a satire. I was referring to intersectionaliteses and whatnot.

I disagree with intersectionalism, I think that's political correctness gone too far.

Oh, we're introducing morality now?

...

Is that not what this entire thing is about? If you don't value morality, then I don't really see a point in discussing this. Why do you even value human advancement if not morality (because advancements will help people)?

Believe it or not, you may not believe this, but I don't like saying these things. I don't like saying the weak should die. But depending on the situations, I am more concerned with the truth. Sure, the truth and morality go hand and hand with each other under some circumstances (ie veganism), but in some situations, the truth has more value, and in some other situations, morality does. Letting the weak die for the advancement of humanity? My wager is on the truth.

???

What do you mean, you are more concerned with 'the truth'? I just don't know what this means.

By truth, do you mean reality? As in you value the reality that it'd be better for 'the weak' to die for humanity to advance? That doesn't make any sense.
The truth and morality are not enemies. The truth has no value on its own; the only good thing about knowing reality is that it helps us determine what is most moral.

If you think that 'the weak' dying would lead to more advancements, and that the advancements would help more people than were hurt from the people who died, then that's a discussion.
But what you're saying here isn't that, it's that (I think) this reality of 'the weak' dying causing advancement somehow overpowers what is moral, and you've somehow rationalized that what's moral is an independent value from the truth and that for whatever reason 'the truth' is more important in this situation. It's not coherent.

And plus, what makes humans exempt from Darwinism? The species has to be smart and strong enough or else it will die off. The smartest and strongest live, and the weakest die off.

Actually, those with the best ability to adapt survive. Intelligence and strength don't necessarily mean you'll survive.

But this doesn't make sense. Humans are not in any immediate danger of going extinct. There's no reason why we should base our society off of evolution. All it would do is kill a bunch of innocent people.

Humans for some reason decided just to keep everyone alive, even the weak and unproductive.

Yeah, it's this thing called morality...

Wow, that is an obtuse misrepresentation. I'm not even sure what the hell that analogy has anything to do with survival of the fittest.

It's not a misrepresentation. You're saying that we should base our society off of evolution, a natural process, for some arbitrary reason. I'm trying to explain how that doesn't make sense with an example of a situation where it's obviously not a good idea to base our society off of a natural process.

I'm not saying it should be based on it, I'm just saying it must be considered, or at least be a factor in it.

Well, it doesn't make sense for the same reason.

And how can you be so sure of that?

What do you think happened? Do you think that we sacrificed the 'unproductive' all throughout history?

The lazy, the irresponsible, people who don't buckle their seat belt, the kids who run down the halls at school, etc..

How are you determining who is lazy and irresponsible?

We're all lazy and irresponsible sometimes. You're even being kind of lazy in this discussion.

Why would people have a family if they only could get a minimum wage job? Unless they get fired, but if they don't have a minimum wage job, they must have some sort of skill that is valued for it be be paid more. I like thinking of work like supply and demand; the more experience and skill a job takes, not many people will have that certain skill, and thus, the demand for it will increase, meaning people will want to pay extra, and vice versa. For instance, a job like an architect may pay very well, because only a few have that in as a field of expertise. And a job like a busboy/girl will pay minimum, because any momo can move quickly and can move dishes into a tray.

They made a bad decision. That doesn't mean we should let them and their (innocent) kids die.

Now thinking about it, when you raise the minimum wage, no one really wins.
Refer to brim's answer. Let's make up a company, called RedAppleGP industries, and I own it, and all of my slaves work on minimum wage. When you raise the minimum wage, the consumer is going to have to pay extra for an apple, and I will have to raise the prices just so I can pay my employees while protecting my own economic interests. With these new prices, the consumer is not going to purchase apples from my company, and will find a company that is able to give a similar product, while selling their product for slightly less because they have less workers. I will attempt automation, so I can lay off a few workers and save me some extra dough. Those workers are now jobless. Or, another outcome can be that I no longer have sufficient customer service, and I can't pay all of my business taxes and such to the government, so I have to go bankrupt and go out of business, and all of the workers lose jobs. The other company that sells red apples is now the only one that sells red apples, meaning they will be laughing at me. Neither of us want that.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I'm going to be responding later to brimstone's comment.

Buying a car, having a family, getting an apartment that is so obviously out of their price range, etc..

So because people make bad decisions, we let them and their families die?

Yeah, but most of the really major ones like the ones I listed above should be no-brainers. Yet some people make those decisions.

A lot of things should be no-brainers from certain perspectives, but that can be pretty subjective, and just because someone makes a stupid mistake doesn't mean that person should be harmed.

So food stamps are welfare? Why the hell didn't you say so? This explains a lot.

You would know that if you actually read what I wrote.

Firstly, as I've said, I'm not against welfare as a whole, I'm against those who live off it or use it for an extended period of time. And I'm not saying a lot of people are doing it, but you gotta acknowledge the fact that some people do live off food stamps.

You fail to acknowledge that most people who do live off it don't do so by choice, so it's wrong to punish them.

Laziness is something that comes to mind..

Even if you are that lazy, the struggle of living on food stamps will make most people try to find a job.

After all, most families that receive welfare have at least one worker in the house.

I forgot. What was it again?

You could just go back and read, but ironically, you're too lazy.

I said I did sub-par research. What do you want from me?

To at least not be a hypocrite and say we should let people suffer and die because you think they're being lazy, while you're simultaneously actually being lazy.

I don't recall ever saying that.

No offense, but just go back and read.

I actually quoted it in my last response:
Me: A lot of people are on welfare, yeah. But according to you, they aren't the problem- the people not looking for work who are on welfare are the problem. These statistics don't apply to those people.
You: If my research is correct, about 35% of Murkans live on welfare.
Now about the percentage of tax dollars that goes to welfare, I'm not so sure. Many sources I have read have contradicting claims, but 2 out of the 3 that I looked up say it's about 12%. From some other research, it says that the average middle-class citizen gets about 35% of their annual salary taxed. Now to do some math that I have no interest in doing.. I'll get back to you on that.

You responded to my statement that people on welfare not looking for work are a small group by saying that a lot of people are on welfare, and you were using this as evidence that people on welfare not looking for work is a significant problem.

Yeah, pretty much. What's your point.

My point is that that is deeply immoral.

It was the parents fault, not the children. If worst comes to worst, they'll be put up for adoption.

Wow, so you're going to take the kids away from their parents too? I'm sure that won't be traumatizing.

okay? and?

So people being on welfare isn't because they're lazy.

Why not?

Because, like I've explained, there's no motive for a significant amount of people to go on welfare and not look for work.

When did I say it was at the school? It can be a playful fist fight, those exist.

I thought we were talking about bullying and whether or not the school should get involved.

I'm not sure if you're trolling me.

I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time finding most comedies funny, since most of them rely on sarcasm.

I like sarcasm, I just usually don't expect it to be mixed in with serious arguments.

[Red]

...

Is that not what this entire thing is about?

I just thought it was about the advancements of humanity.

If you don't value morality, then I don't really see a point in discussing this. Why do you even value human advancement if not morality (because advancements will help people)?

I do value morality. I'm a vegan, for fuck's sake. I'm not sure if you're even paying attention, because I've made it abundantly clear that I do value morality, but depending on the situation, truth has more value, and vice versa.

???

What do you mean, you are more concerned with 'the truth'? I just don't know what this means.

Is it really that hard to understand? Tell me what you have trouble understanding.

By truth, do you mean reality?

Not really, more like what needs to be done.

As in you value the reality that it'd be better for 'the weak' to die for humanity to advance? That doesn't make any sense.

This point is moot.

The truth and morality are not enemies. The truth has no value on its own; the only good thing about knowing reality is that it helps us determine what is most moral.

1. Moot. 2. Refer to answers given earlier.

If you think that 'the weak' dying would lead to more advancements, and that the advancements would help more people than were hurt from the people who died, then that's a discussion.

I have no clue what you just said here.

But what you're saying here isn't that, it's that (I think) this reality of 'the weak' dying causing advancement somehow overpowers what is moral, and you've somehow rationalized that what's moral is an independent value from the truth and that for whatever reason 'the truth' is more important in this situation. It's not coherent.

Well it's not reality as you claim, so..

Actually, those with the best ability to adapt survive. Intelligence and strength don't necessarily mean you'll survive.

I forgot. Strength and intelligence are totally not factors of that. I must've left my brain in the oldsmobile.

But this doesn't make sense. Humans are not in any immediate danger of going extinct. There's no reason why we should base our society off of evolution. All it would do is kill a bunch of innocent people.

I understand what you're saying. You don't want any human advancements in the evolutionary timeline.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by survival of the fittest. Can you explain what you thought I meant?

Yeah, it's this thing called morality...

How many times must I repeat myself about my opinions on morality? I think I already covered that I understand it's immoral, but the truth has more value here, at least for me it does.

It's not a misrepresentation. You're saying that we should base our society off of evolution, a natural process, for some arbitrary reason. I'm trying to explain how that doesn't make sense with an example of a situation where it's obviously not a good idea to base our society off of a natural process.

So you're saying I'm using an appeal to nature?
Humans are part of nature. Sure, we've evolved to a higher intelligence level so to speak, but that doesn't exempt us from nature's processeses. We're still animals, and go through biological and natural stages regardless of our evolutionary state.

Well, it doesn't make sense for the same reason.

What reason?

What do you think happened? Do you think that we sacrificed the 'unproductive' all throughout history?

I'm pretty sure it's a safe bet, based on my understanding. Times were really tough back then, so chances are you had a job, probably a farmer. Just look at mesoamerica. Those doods had so many crops that people had to get other jobs.

But it's not just about human advancements, it's mostly about reaching the next stage in evolution.

How are you determining who is lazy and irresponsible?

People who fall under those adjectives, in terms of helping society.

We're all lazy and irresponsible sometimes. You're even being kind of lazy in this discussion.

In terms of helping society.

They made a bad decision. That doesn't mean we should let them and their (innocent) kids die.

Fine, let the parents die, hand the children over to the state, since they're clearly not responsible enough to care for a vulnerable human being.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I'm going to be responding later to brimstone's comment.

I can't wait.

So because people make bad decisions, we let them and their families die?

Yeah, it's their stupid fault. They can go on welfare until they get back into shape, but I fear they'll rely on the system too heavily. Plus, it was their own dumbass fault, so another reason to be against welfare.

A lot of things should be no-brainers from certain perspectives, but that can be pretty subjective, and just because someone makes a stupid mistake doesn't mean that person should be harmed.

This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. The stupid and irresponsible should just, y'know, be left to their own stupidities and let the consequences weigh in on them.

You would know that if you actually read what I wrote.

I just reread them. They were quite abstract from my point of view.

You fail to acknowledge that most people who do live off it don't do so by choice, so it's wrong to punish them.

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

Even if you are that lazy, the struggle of living on food stamps will make most people try to find a job.

So they won't need welfare. I keep my tax dollars and someone gets to eat. Everyone wins!

After all, most families that receive welfare have at least one worker in the house.

Keyword, families. I'm not sure if minimum wage is designed to support families.

You could just go back and read, but ironically, you're too lazy.

And you're just as lazy, since you didn't tell me what it was, probably because you didn't bother either.

To at least not be a hypocrite and say we should let people suffer and die because you think they're being lazy, while you're simultaneously actually being lazy.

So I guess all the times I did community service, helped my dad with most of his errands, and donating $150 to charity annually don't actually count as doing something, and not bothering to do minimal research for a stupid online argument is considered indolence.

You responded to my statement that people on welfare not looking for work are a small group by saying that a lot of people are on welfare, and you were using this as evidence that people on welfare not looking for work is a significant problem.

So you're saying that I think all people that are on welfare are lazy? Go back and reread, and you will find my counter to that.

My point is that that is deeply immoral.

Oh, good. I thought it was something of importance.

Look, just because it is immoral doesn't make it wrong.

Wow, so you're going to take the kids away from their parents too? I'm sure that won't be traumatizing.

It's the parents fault.

So people being on welfare isn't because they're lazy.

I'm fucking tired of not having my arguments read.

Because, like I've explained, there's no motive for a significant amount of people to go on welfare and not look for work.

And again..

I thought we were talking about bullying and whether or not the school should get involved.

I'm not sure if you're trolling me.

Fuck it, i don't care anymore. Just let the kids fight.

I like sarcasm, I just usually don't expect it to be mixed in with serious arguments.

Too bad, because you'll be seeing a lot of it from me.

[EquALLity]

Look, just because it is immoral doesn't make it wrong.

Ok, I just can't tell if you're trolling me or not.

Whatever, I'm just not going to respond to your arguments anymore. I just can't tell if they're real, and I feel like I'm wasting time.

[Red]

Ok, I guess I win, since you pussied out.

[brimstoneSalad]

What are you two even arguing about?

Summarize in 100 words each.

[PsYcHo]

Seems like somewhere in between Redapple wanting to let poor people die, and EquAllity wanting to throw money at them. And something about bullies and sarcasm. (Making popcorn, don't stop now!)


..I'll let myself out..