Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
SemperMortis wrote: ]maybe take a moment to use rational thought and figure out what was said wasn't implying child labor, or that kids need to work in order to live.
No one said anything even remotely close to that, and we're the one's doing mental gymnastics?
Trust me the list goes on and on, and it is absurd.
Yes. Your list and your argument is absurd
Instead of rewards the truly exceptional
Rewarding the exceptional is great. Doesn't mean we have to treat everyone else like garbage. Not everyone is going to be exceptional. Extremely few people are exceptional. An argument that the masses should shut up and accept their exceptional overlords as the one true masters of the universe is Ayn Rand's worst contribution to American politics, and it be funny if it weren't repeated over and over with such fervor (well it is funny. Scary funny). We've been there before. This country was founded on a notion that all men (well, it was founded on the notion that white land owning Christian men were equal but that's another discussion).
are there any actual numbers for healthy adults who can work for a family-supporting wage but choose to live off of welfare instead?
A lot of welfare recipients do work. It varies by state. This idea that "healthy adults should be working and not on welfare" is a really stupid notion. Lay offs, shifts in the job market, the job market just sucking, high competition for positions. There's really no other way to put it. It's just plain stupid, based in nothing more than head fantasies about work and social morality with no real baring on the actual market. People can end up out of work for so many reasons, and personal health isn't really relevant to many of them. There's 0 point in quantifying welfare recipients by "how many of them can work but don't." They don't have enough to get by on their own, and that's really the only factor that matters where welfare is concerned. The rest is labor and economic concerns, and can't be dealt with on an individual basis.
I like to say that to have an intelligent conversation, you have to ask intelligent questions. "Why are we paying for all these people who can work but choose not to?" is not an intelligent question. It's a really stupid question.
Or is it just one of those things that have to happen because I'm sure Dave down the street is doing it?
It often feels that way. And here's the thing. For everyone anyone can think of who "can work but doesn't." someone can think of someone who ":works but shouldn't" or someone "who wants to work but can't." It's part and parcel of why the stupid question is so stupid. It relies on this fundamental dumbing down of people, their motivations, and basic job economics.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/05 04:17:16
SemperMortis wrote: LMAO, I make a comment about working in order to feed yourself and your family and you SJW types rush in with CHILD LABOR IS BAD!!
The mental gymnastics you guys have just pulled off is astounding.
Maybe instead of trying to twist anything that slightly disagrees with you, maybe take a moment to use rational thought and figure out what was said wasn't implying child labor, or that kids need to work in order to live.
Maybe, just maybe I was referring to healthy adults who have the ability to work to earn a wage in order to support their families, who instead choose to squeeze by on welfare and food stamps instead of just getting that job to support themselves.
...
Maybe, just maybe you should have said that in the first place.
No one said anything even remotely close to that, and we're the one's doing mental gymnastics?
I guess you just choose not to read your fellow socialists posts.
A kid who dies at five is a kid who will never have a chance to pull himself up by his bootstraps, or whatever the silly analogy reducing all success to a binary of financial gain is
Yeah, let 'em starve. Stupid poors. This country was founded on the principal of 'you work or you don't eat', by God, and it's time that became our rallying cry once again! Hear that, little Timmy? Get back in the coal mine or no dinner for you! No free lunches in the good old USA, no sir, turf 'em out of those soup kitchens!
Trust me the list goes on and on, and it is absurd.
Rewarding the exceptional is great. Doesn't mean we have to treat everyone else like garbage. Not everyone is going to be exceptional. Extremely few people are exceptional. An argument that the masses should shut up and accept their exceptional overlords as the one true masters of the universe is Ayn Rand's worst contribution to American politics, and it be funny if it weren't repeated over and over with such fervor (well it is funny. Scary funny). We've been there before. This country was founded on a notion that all men (well, it was founded on the notion that white land owning Christian men were equal but that's another discussion).
Yes. Your list and your argument is absurd
Meaning you couldn't find a rebuttal for my point or you just accept that our culture has watered down success, much like socialism likes to do. We are all equally good because otherwise someone might get their feelings hurt.
The point of COMPETITIVE SPORTS is not for exercise as someone else pointed out, that is what P.E. in school is for. The point of COMPETITIVE SPORTS and other competitive events is to test yourself or your team against the rest of your school or area or district. The idea that everyone should receive an award for participating, regardless of how good they are, or how hard they work, waters down the entire idea of competition. It rewards those to lazy to practice or study and diminishes the accomplishments of those who worked hard.
are there any actual numbers for healthy adults who can work for a family-supporting wage but choose to live off of welfare instead?
A lot of welfare recipients do work. It varies by state. This idea that "healthy adults should be working and not on welfare" is a really stupid notion. Lay offs, shifts in the job market, the job market just sucking, high competition for positions. There's really no other way to put it. It's just plain stupid, based in nothing more than head fantasies about work and social morality with no real baring on the actual market. People can end up out of work for so many reasons, and personal health isn't really relevant to many of them. There's 0 point in quantifying welfare recipients by "how many of them can work but don't." They don't have enough to get by on their own, and that's really the only factor that matters where welfare is concerned. The rest is labor and economic concerns, and can't be dealt with on an individual basis.
I like to say that to have an intelligent conversation, you have to ask intelligent questions. "Why are we paying for all these people who can work but choose not to?" is not an intelligent question. It's a really stupid question.
Maine told everyone on food stamps they were required to get a job in order to retain food stamps (if they were able bodied) and 80% of the able bodied adults got cut because they chose not to. What does that tell you? im sure you and the rest of the left will perform some more wonderfully artistic mental gymnastics to prove Maine is evil somehow.
Or is it just one of those things that have to happen because I'm sure Dave down the street is doing it?
Yes, if you consider entire states to be "Dave" then yes, it is dave down the street, or in the North East of the United States.
It often feels that way. And here's the thing. For everyone anyone can think of who "can work but doesn't." someone can think of someone who ":works but shouldn't" or someone "who wants to work but can't." It's part and parcel of why the stupid question is so stupid. It relies on this fundamental dumbing down of people, their motivations, and basic job economics.
Or proof from studies done by the states requiring Able bodied people to work in order to receive benefits that by requiring people to work most either stop getting the program because Feth that noise or become successful to the point where they no longer need food stamps. But hey, lets not let ACTUAL proof get in the way of our socialist goals right?
SemperMortis wrote: LMAO, I make a comment about working in order to feed yourself and your family and you SJW types rush in with CHILD LABOR IS BAD!!
The mental gymnastics you guys have just pulled off is astounding.
Maybe instead of trying to twist anything that slightly disagrees with you, maybe take a moment to use rational thought and figure out what was said wasn't implying child labor, or that kids need to work in order to live.
Maybe, just maybe I was referring to healthy adults who have the ability to work to earn a wage in order to support their families, who instead choose to squeeze by on welfare and food stamps instead of just getting that job to support themselves.
...
Maybe, just maybe you should have said that in the first place.
And maybe you should take basic reading comprehension. It is not the fault of the author if someone reads their work and infers that x = y. That is completely based on assumption, and as anyone who has bothered to study analytics knows, assumptions are not fact.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/05 13:34:30
The point of COMPETITIVE SPORTS is not for exercise as someone else pointed out, that is what P.E. in school is for. The point of COMPETITIVE SPORTS and other competitive events is to test yourself or your team against the rest of your school or area or district. The idea that everyone should receive an award for participating, regardless of how good they are, or how hard they work, waters down the entire idea of competition. It rewards those to lazy to practice or study and diminishes the accomplishments of those who worked hard.
The object of a sport is to win. The point is to display your athleticism, skill and good sportsmanship.
When I was a child I ran track (way, way back. I'm friggin' old.) Every kid got a ribbon, from 1st all the way to 30th. Didn't mean the kid that took first wasn't proud, or that the kid that took 30th didn't know he came last. The best I personally took was 7th, and that was a result of me trying harder and harder to work my way up, getting a bit better each time.
Have you read any actual studies that show that "participation medals" waters down competition? That kids are going, "yeah, I could try and get first place, but this generic 'Good Job!' sticker is good enough for me."
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Easy E wrote: So, is someone suggesting that "participation ribbons" leads to Authoritarianism?
No that was just a bit of hyperbole/venting; I believe his actual point was, there are many (especially young people?) who assume a central authority should have the power to provide for XYZ and control ABC - and presumably, this is connected to a purported desire for unmerited validation ("entitlement").
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/05 17:27:51
Easy E wrote: So, is someone suggesting that "participation ribbons" leads to Authoritarianism?
I'm not sure. Perhaps Semper Mortis's "SJW's" are unwittingly leading us to Authoritarianism? Road to hell/good intentions? Idk. It was a pretty good "old man angry that the world has passed him by" rant last page that brought us here.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Easy E wrote: So, is someone suggesting that "participation ribbons" leads to Authoritarianism?
No that was just a bit of hyperbole/venting; I believe his actual point was, there are many (especially young people?) who assume a central authority should have the power to provide for XYZ and control ABC - and presumably, this is connected to a purported desire for unmerited validation ("entitlement").
Is it part of the human condition that we all feel this way to some degree? I mean, without it aren't we struck by existential dread and the inability to move forward and grow? We have to rationalize our place int eh world somehow so let's call it fate, destiny, a higher-power, the central authority, class, etc.
Therefore, are humans pre-disposed to Authoritarian command and control structures?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
I am truly sorry I hurt your feelings. It was not my intention to belittle you or to make you cry if I did in fact do that. merely to put out that by insisting that I had influenced others to make such blatantly off topic comments was absurd.
SemperMortis wrote: Maine told everyone on food stamps they were required to get a job in order to retain food stamps (if they were able bodied) and 80% of the able bodied adults got cut because they chose not to. What does that tell you? im sure you and the rest of the left will perform some more wonderfully artistic mental gymnastics to prove Maine is evil somehow.
Human beings should not be demanded to be profitable units of labour for capital in order to be able to live. Industrial production is so bonkers that far from everyone actually needs to work. Leisure is a worthy goal and something that we collectively should strive more towards. We should structure society in such a way that art and play can be freely pursued.
SemperMortis wrote: I guess you just choose not to read your fellow socialists posts.
There you go assuming things no one said again.
Meaning you couldn't find a rebuttal for my point or you just accept that our culture has watered down success, much like socialism likes to do. We are all equally good because otherwise someone might get their feelings hurt.
You don't actually have a point. You're just repeating tired old arguments (some of which have nothing to do with the topic) that have been shot down time and time again over 30 years while throwing out wild assumptions about other people's political opinions as insults.
Nobody has said welfare should go away completely, but the numbers show that a large percentage of able bodied adults choose to not work, or work 1 part time job of less then 20 hours a week instead of working full time because they know they can make up the difference on food stamps and welfare checks.
You really are making a lot of assumptions (but then I've already said there).
Why do you assume its people choosing not to work 20 hours a week? A lot of employers don't let them work more. To be fair, that's at times because the employer doesn't need them to work more than 20 hours. I worked for FedEx as a loader for a few years. It was about 25 hours a week, and honestly the company didn't need to employ me for more than that. Someone needed to load the truck of course, but it's a job that doesn't take more than 4-6 hours of work a day. They simply couldn't give me more work. I tried juggling two jobs for awhile, but that's not exactly easy. For about 4 weeks I was working 70 hours a week between two jobs, which was 4 weeks of physical suffering. I had to quite the second job because the physical pain of doing to jobs with lots of standing and lifting was too much. Finding one two employers and trying to get them both on the same page when it comes to your own workload is difficult.
There's the famous case of the Wisconsin Walmart, which literally told its employees to how to get on welfare because it wasn't going to pay them enough to get by on their own (estimated that this single Walmart cost nearly $1 million). The negative fall out from that decisions actually lead to Walmart giving all its employees across the company a a pay raise. Now everyone who works for the Mart, and Sam's Club, gets at least $10 an hours by company policy, which is actually pretty good money even at low part time hours. Unfortunately it still won't be enough money to support a family if you happen to have one. I had the advantage though of being a single adult male with no children. My expenses are low, so I could get by on 25 hours a week so long as my rent was cheap and I keep food costs low (all hail the mighty coupon!).
There's multitudes of reasons people might not work full time. There's a multitude of reasons they don't work at all. There is no case study that welfare recipients are lazy. That's just your assumption, and your link actually provides no data to back it up. They just throw the claim in with a unrelated data sets that don't support it, and rely on your to make the assumption they know you're going to make because that's the Heritage Foundation's bread and butter.
What does that tell you?
Absolutely nothing actually. The data only supports that when work requirements were set in many people no longer had Welfare because if they didn't have a job before why should we assume they'll be able to magically get one now? Jobs don't grow on trees (unless your an apple farmer that is ). It actually proves nothing about them except that they're no longer on welfare. It's like 2 + 2 = 4. If you instituted a restriction on services, the number of people able to access them drops.
There's probably lots of people on welfare who don't have to be. That's part and parcel of having a welfare system in the first place. The system is there because there are people who need help, and as with any system people will find ways to game it. That's a basic reality of any system. Someone will find a way to game it. It's a cost of business so to speak. I don't really care. Much as I'd rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man be incarcerated, I'd rather a lazy bum get a free $167 a month (because that's the kind of money we're talking about here), than someone who really needs help be unable to get any. I don't know enough about Maine's situation to know if it was the right or the wrong answer for that state's needs. The situation when it comes to Welfare program outcomes varies by a lot from one state to the next. I do know that I don't like the way people have used Maine's policy change in national debate on welfare.
im sure you and the rest of the left ... mental gymnastics to prove Maine is evil somehow.
More assumptions!
But hey, lets not let ACTUAL proof get in the way of my assumptions?
Fixed that for you because that's all that's really being talked about here.
And maybe you should take basic reading comprehension.
You might consider that if multiple people are misunderstanding you, it might be because something you wrote was poorly worded. It does happen.
It is not the fault of the author if someone reads their work and infers that x = y.
SemperMortis wrote: Meaning you couldn't find a rebuttal for my point or you just accept that our culture has watered down success, much like socialism likes to do. We are all equally good because otherwise someone might get their feelings hurt.
You have absolutely no idea what socialism is or how it operates. You think there are no medals in a socialist society? You think Mao went around telling everyone that they all just as good as each other? The exact opposite was true. Socialist countries are almost always nationalist countries, they love the idea of working for the state, and so people who are recognised as big contributors are celebrated and made in to heroes. At the same time those who are seen as not contributing are villified and pushed to the outer of society.
Indeed, one of the scariest things about socialist states is how people who are deemed as non-useful can be made in to pariahs almost overnight.
The point of COMPETITIVE SPORTS is not for exercise as someone else pointed out, that is what P.E. in school is for. The point of COMPETITIVE SPORTS and other competitive events is to test yourself or your team against the rest of your school or area or district.
The idea that we should set up COMPETITIVE SPORTS leagues for 8 year olds that are no different to those for 15 years olds is bonkers.
Yeah, see the problem is that you're reading Heritage. They're basically a propaganda wing of the Republican Party, their intellectual credibility is negative.
Maine told everyone on food stamps they were required to get a job in order to retain food stamps (if they were able bodied) and 80% of the able bodied adults got cut because they chose not to.
Under what fantastical world view does someone decide to work, and then all of a sudden they've just got a job?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/06 02:41:34
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Interesting, but I was under the impression that Psycho-analysis was on the outs in today's day and age.
Is Fromm a psycho-analyzist? I've generally only heard him referred to as a social scientist. Methodology falling out of favor with modern practicioners doesn't per se mean it was wrong, or that all work produced by such methods is false. Fromm's work on freedom and democracy has had far more influence in political science than in psychology for example, because his work in those areas is quite insightful, and arguably more relevant now than it was when he first published.
Reading more of Fromm, it seems like much of today's politic's are focused on his idea of 'Freedom From" as opposed to the more positive "Freedom To" concept.
Fromm has some ideas on what is the best way to counter the rise of Authoritarianism. However it is individual based and less societal focused.
What is the best way to counter-authoritarian thinking and thought processes?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Maybe the answer lies in diagnosing the problem. IMO authoritarian thinking today is largely the product of constant mass media exposure, which will only ever become more intense from here on out. So it is crucial to develop critical - rather than only or primarily analytical - skills in our population.
SemperMortis wrote: Meaning you couldn't find a rebuttal for my point or you just accept that our culture has watered down success, much like socialism likes to do. We are all equally good because otherwise someone might get their feelings hurt.
You have absolutely no idea what socialism is or how it operates. You think there are no medals in a socialist society? You think Mao went around telling everyone that they all just as good as each other? The exact opposite was true. Socialist countries are almost always nationalist countries, they love the idea of working for the state, and so people who are recognised as big contributors are celebrated and made in to heroes. At the same time those who are seen as not contributing are villified and pushed to the outer of society.
Indeed, one of the scariest things about socialist states is how people who are deemed as non-useful can be made in to pariahs almost overnight.
The point of COMPETITIVE SPORTS is not for exercise as someone else pointed out, that is what P.E. in school is for. The point of COMPETITIVE SPORTS and other competitive events is to test yourself or your team against the rest of your school or area or district.
The idea that we should set up COMPETITIVE SPORTS leagues for 8 year olds that are no different to those for 15 years olds is bonkers.
Yeah, see the problem is that you're reading Heritage. They're basically a propaganda wing of the Republican Party, their intellectual credibility is negative.
Maine told everyone on food stamps they were required to get a job in order to retain food stamps (if they were able bodied) and 80% of the able bodied adults got cut because they chose not to.
Under what fantastical world view does someone decide to work, and then all of a sudden they've just got a job?
So, with what we are seeing today in the Philippines, the U.S., Post-Brexit, Turkey, etc. is authoritarianism actually on the rise? What parallels are there between today and the 1930's?
It seems that one similarity is the hopelessness of "working" people to improve their lot in life. Is this a global issue?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Easy E wrote: So, with what we are seeing today in the Philippines, the U.S., Post-Brexit, Turkey, etc. is authoritarianism actually on the rise? What parallels are there between today and the 1930's?
It seems that one similarity is the hopelessness of "working" people to improve their lot in life. Is this a global issue?
You can add Poland to that list.
Exactly what is happening is anyone's guess. It seems another one of those issues where everyone just assumes it is because of their own favourite cause. So people who are concerned about income equality say it's because of income equality. People who are concerned with political correctness or some other issue on the left say its because of that. Other people say it's because of Islam, but half say it's because we've denied the problem and the other half say it's because we've allowed vilification of Muslims.
Maybe its all of those things, or maybe it is none of them. I don't know. There is certainly something happening, because I'm not sure there are too many countries where some kind of extremist, reactionary movement isn't gaining power.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Maybe its all of those things, or maybe it is none of them. I don't know. There is certainly something happening, because I'm not sure there are too many countries where some kind of extremist, reactionary movement isn't gaining power.
Yes, this is the part that concerns me, that and the fact that the electorates across the globe are O.K. and endorsing it. I really just do not understand and want to know more.
Is it all just part of a Generational Cycle? I seem to recall some theories about how the "Greatest generation" have to fight a big war, then Their kids learn some lesson from it, then their kids begin to dilute the lesson, and their kids "Millenials" do not even know the lesson that the big war taught and hence repeat the cycle ad infinitum.
I am sure someone smarter than me has heard of this and knows the actual name, and can tell me why it is hogwash.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/20 15:44:27
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Maybe its all of those things, or maybe it is none of them. I don't know. There is certainly something happening, because I'm not sure there are too many countries where some kind of extremist, reactionary movement isn't gaining power.
Yes, this is the part that concerns me, that and the fact that the electorates across the globe are O.K. and endorsing it. I really just do not understand and want to know more.
Is it all just part of a Generational Cycle? I seem to recall some theories about how the "Greatest generation" have to fight a big war, then Their kids learn some lesson from it, then their kids begin to dilute the lesson, and their kids "Millenials" do not even know the lesson that the big war taught and hence repeat the cycle ad infinitum.
I am sure someone smarter than me has heard of this and knows the actual name, and can tell me why it is hogwash.
Generally the older generations of humans have always believed that the youth of their day are ignorant, rash, reckless and going to cause the downfall of society. There was a well-known guy in Ancient Greece who said things about the youth back then that pretty much directly mirrored what older people nowadays think about young people today.
Personally I think it's just the natural effect that being born knowing nothing has. You need to learn things to know them, and you can't instantly know everything, so the older you are, the more opportunities you've had to learn about things, whereas younger people haven't had as much time to learn. It's also supported by most people looking back at their younger years and remembering what an idiot they were then.
). It actually proves nothing about them except that they're no longer on welfare. It's like 2 + 2 = 4. If you instituted a restriction on services, the number of people able to access them drops.
