Americans
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,694
Nicejohnmedina999 wrote:
Yes.
It is entirely their fault. I do still feel bad for them, though, because their government should be taking way fucking better care of them. America is an embarrassment to the rest of the developed world.Foxtrot wrote:
I don't know about you, but I feel bad. Even though this is how democracy works, I still feel bad for those people.
are people who are poor always to blame for being poor?Mahogany wrote:
It is entirely their fault. I do still feel bad for them, though, because their government should be taking way fucking better care of them. America is an embarrassment to the rest of the developed world.Foxtrot wrote:
I don't know about you, but I feel bad. Even though this is how democracy works, I still feel bad for those people.
Nope. More often than not it's the fault of the government.
So are people of poor intelligence and poor reasoning skills always to be blamed for their lack of ability?Mahogany wrote:
Nope. More often than not it's the fault of the government.
Why is Mahogany like this.
"Always" is a strong word hereRailey2 wrote:
are people who are poor always to blame for being poor?
Ofc not always, but the 99% of homeless I see in NYC are druggies who can't do anything better with their life. It will be nice if they were cared for, but knowing they want nothing but that smoke or whatever shit they are on makes it more pitiful.
Tell that to mahogany, he said first that it's entirely their fault.abraker wrote:
"Always" is a strong word hereRailey2 wrote:
are people who are poor always to blame for being poor?
Ofc not always, but the 99% of homeless I see in NYC are druggies who can't do anything better with their life. It will be nice if they were cared for, but knowing they want nothing but that smoke or whatever shit they are on makes it more pitiful.
My point was: Most people understand the very intuitive truth that it's harder to create a change when you have little work with. When you're given little, it's harder to make it more, this applies to money and education likewise. Blaming uneducated people 100% for making uneducated choices seems a but iffy to me, just like it's strange to blame poor people 100% for staying poor.
Also your view on homeless people seems a bit extreme, abraker. But thats for another time i guess
Well... I can honestly say some hardworking people end up just terribly poor. My mom is one of those examples. She's a Laotian refugee. Even when going to school, I couldn't really afford things like school supplies and things of the like but I was very happy that our community was able to help me. In high school, I did a few sports and when I realized I was good at them, I wanted to join the team but my mom couldn't afford it. I picked up a few jobs here and there to help her.
But I'm happy because she now takes care of my grandfather and gets paid for it so she's been better off.
But I'm happy because she now takes care of my grandfather and gets paid for it so she's been better off.
DependsRailey2 wrote:
So are people of poor intelligence and poor reasoning skills always to be blamed for their lack of ability?
Did they go to good schools and still come out dumb as shit? Then sure.
Did they have no good options for schools, and were forced to go to a terrible one that couldn't teach properly? Then it's not their fault.
Like what? Someone who disagrees with you?Faust wrote:
Why is Mahogany like this.
I can't agree that it's often the government, though that depends where you look. For those who are able to still help themselves, with high enough will power one may overcome the bad position they are in. All depends whether they want to put the effort and/or are fine with how their life is going for them or not.Mahogany wrote:
Nope. More often than not it's the fault of the government.
My mom migrated to the US from where she was an economist. While she had a masters level education, it meant nothing here. So she had to start over, but she came with no money, so getting a degree was out of the question. There was a bit hardship the first 10 years, but now we have a house and doing pretty well. Can we do better? I think so, but that's effort she wants to leave to me and my sister.Hika wrote:
Well... I can honestly say some hardworking people end up just terribly poor. My mom is one of those examples. She's a Laotian refugee. Even when going to school, I couldn't really afford things like school supplies and things of the like but I was very happy that our community was able to help me. In high school, I did a few sports and when I realized I was good at them, I wanted to join the team but my mom couldn't afford it. I picked up a few jobs here and there to help her.
But I'm happy because she now takes care of my grandfather and gets paid for it so she's been better off.
Also there is an interesting case with someone I know who is studying to become an accountant. When I asked why not something higher up, he just said he's fine with just being an accountant. Idk if that view has changed, but it does bother me a bit when people don't think to aim higher up.
But higher up means more responsibility and less time for Deez nuts on your chinabraker wrote:
Idk if that view has changed, but it does bother me a bit when people don't think to aim higher up.
Oh, there are always exceptions, but someone shouldn't have to go above and beyond just to have a reasonable quality of life.abraker wrote:
I can't agree that it's often the government, though that depends where you look. For those who are able to still help themselves, with high enough will power one may overcome the bad position they are in. All depends whether they want to put the effort and/or are fine with how their life is going for them or not.
Also, how does someone put in effort to change their situation if they lack the necessary knowledge? Education is a requirement for an empowered populace: Those less fortunate are also the ones who incidentally have the least power to change their situation. This is why the use of social and education programmes to help these people are essential, and beneficial to everyone.
You are are right, you can have a reasonable quality of life without aiming higher, but that depends on one's perspective.Mahogany wrote:
Oh, there are always exceptions, but someone shouldn't have to go above and beyond just to have a reasonable quality of life.abraker wrote:
I can't agree that it's often the government, though that depends where you look. For those who are able to still help themselves, with high enough will power one may overcome the bad position they are in. All depends whether they want to put the effort and/or are fine with how their life is going for them or not.
Also, how does someone put in effort to change their situation if they lack the necessary knowledge? Education is a requirement for an empowered populace: Those less fortunate are also the ones who incidentally have the least power to change their situation. This is why the use of social and education programmes to help these people are essential, and beneficial to everyone.
Unless you are in an unfortunate dictatorship that is ready to execute you for knowing anything but it's culture, there is almost certainly a way to get the knowledge. Be it the library or the internet, though even in extreme cases, if there is a will then there is away. Why do I hear a story about some African child in a secluded village learning some shit and makes something with that knowledge to become a local hero while I have all the knowledge a foot away from me and instead I am stuck playing these stupid osu! minigames instead?
But those that are in those unfortunate dictatorship... yea there is no single will that can help
Soft drinks are pretty much poison. But I've never been one to force people from making their own lifestyle choice. It wouldn't be the first time that liberals have made policy for "moral good" while creating disastrous consequences.
Now about the poor. That's an interesting topic. Going to some places on Reddit, you have all these left-wing people who think that there is some rich vs poor dichotomy, that the conservative parties who are full of rich people who want to profit at the poor people's expense. Basically socialist lite. Funny that the majority of these left wingers are college educated middle class, and they think any poor people are vote right are 'voting against their own interests', in the typical condescending attitude they have where they think only they know what is right for everyone.
People being poor is partly their own fault, partly the fault of their situation. One of the biggest factor keeping people poor is welfare. Simply put, if people get money for doing nothing, they are not incentivised to work lots and give up all their free time for only slightly better living standards. Most poor people do not work many hours [1] [2]. And like abraker says, lots of the poor are druggies, no good people where it's entirely their fault. If you actually go to low-income neighborhoods, you will see this. Lots of people have the opportunity, few people use that opportunity. In the end, the only thing that can get people out of poverty is the people themselves, with hard work and determination. And lots of welfare and social programs are counter-productive for this.
Of course one of the factors of poverty is the labour market, as a lot of people can't find full time work even though they want to. One of the solutions for this is deregulation of the working environment and reduction of the minimum wage, to get rid of the artificial barrier to finding work. Countries in the EU without minimum wage laws have about a 33% smaller unemployment rate than those that do [3].
[1] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/who-are- ... or-america
[2] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/research-pap ... arch-needs
[3] https://www.cato.org/publications/comme ... -wage-laws
Now about the poor. That's an interesting topic. Going to some places on Reddit, you have all these left-wing people who think that there is some rich vs poor dichotomy, that the conservative parties who are full of rich people who want to profit at the poor people's expense. Basically socialist lite. Funny that the majority of these left wingers are college educated middle class, and they think any poor people are vote right are 'voting against their own interests', in the typical condescending attitude they have where they think only they know what is right for everyone.
People being poor is partly their own fault, partly the fault of their situation. One of the biggest factor keeping people poor is welfare. Simply put, if people get money for doing nothing, they are not incentivised to work lots and give up all their free time for only slightly better living standards. Most poor people do not work many hours [1] [2]. And like abraker says, lots of the poor are druggies, no good people where it's entirely their fault. If you actually go to low-income neighborhoods, you will see this. Lots of people have the opportunity, few people use that opportunity. In the end, the only thing that can get people out of poverty is the people themselves, with hard work and determination. And lots of welfare and social programs are counter-productive for this.
Of course one of the factors of poverty is the labour market, as a lot of people can't find full time work even though they want to. One of the solutions for this is deregulation of the working environment and reduction of the minimum wage, to get rid of the artificial barrier to finding work. Countries in the EU without minimum wage laws have about a 33% smaller unemployment rate than those that do [3].
[1] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/who-are- ... or-america
[2] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/research-pap ... arch-needs
[3] https://www.cato.org/publications/comme ... -wage-laws
There'll always be these amazing, inspiring exceptions, but simply speaking most people will never achieve something like thisabraker wrote:
Unless you are in an unfortunate dictatorship that is ready to execute you for knowing anything but it's culture, there is almost certainly a way to get the knowledge. Be it the library or the internet, though even in extreme cases, if there is a will then there is away. Why do I hear a story about some African child in a secluded village learning some shit and makes something with that knowledge to become a local hero while I have all the knowledge a foot away from me and instead I am stuck playing these stupid osu! minigames instead?
Simply statistically speaking, most won't amount to anything like that without having an easy route to acquiring the education. It should not be so hard for these people in the first place.
You can still drink the soda, you stupid fuckB1rd wrote:
Soft drinks are pretty much poison. But I've never been one to force people from making their own lifestyle choice. It wouldn't be the first time that liberals' have made policy for 'moral good' while creating disastrous consequences.
Because they're educated you twat. Someone who's educated is naturally going to have more insight than someone who isn't educated. Are you seriously so insecure that you hate all people you perceive as smarter than you? In that case, I'm honored.B1rd wrote:
Funny that the majority of these left wingers are college educated middle class, and they think any poor people are vote right are 'voting against their own interests', in the typical condescending attitude they have where they think only they know what is right for everyone.
Are you seriousB1rd wrote:
People being poor is partly their own fault, partly the fault of their situation. One of the biggest factor keeping people poor is welfare.
Welfare, and not poor wages are the reason?
If somebody doesn't get paid well for work, what's the point in working? There, point completely reversed. Hence why it's necessary for regulations on minimum wage and such, which you endlessly protest against.
This is the only point in that paragraph that sticks out like a sore thumb. Don't mind the fact without it their life is put in danger, but you are implying that people should fend for themselves. You are implying somebody with no money will not be able to survive. That is so wrong. Even if the person is homeless, you don't want them dying on the streets. Moreover, you don't want them to be a carrier of some undiagnosed disease that may have implications for the rest of the population.B1rd wrote:
One of the biggest factor keeping people poor is welfare
Are you done beating up the strawman you created? I mean, I was only talking about the effect welfare has, it's a bit early to pull the 'dying on the streets' card.
See? Can't stand opposing viewpoints.
You went towards a bit extreme part of the spectrum. Yea majority can't help themselves and there is little point in helping if they are not cooperating, but think a little about what an undiagnosed group of people can bring to the rest of the population. You have to understand the ones that cannot be helped to make sure everybody else can be helped before they go into a state they cannot be helped.B1rd wrote:
Are you done beating up the strawman you created? I mean, I was only talking about the effect welfare has, it's a bit early to pull the 'dying on the streets' card.
honestly the world is too big to help everyone, sometimes it's actually better to just care about only yourself
Not sure I completely understand what you're saying.abraker wrote:
You went towards a bit extreme part of the spectrum. Yea majority can't help themselves and there is little point in helping if they are not cooperating, but think a little about what an undiagnosed group of people can bring to the rest of the population. You have to understand the ones that cannot be helped to make sure everybody else can be helped before they go into a state they cannot be helped.
We need welfare because those that cannot afford it will spread their disease to the rest of the population. Additionally, it's worth learning how to prevent people from becoming those that cannot be helped.B1rd wrote:
Not sure I completely understand what you're saying.abraker wrote:
You went towards a bit extreme part of the spectrum. Yea majority can't help themselves and there is little point in helping if they are not cooperating, but think a little about what an undiagnosed group of people can bring to the rest of the population. You have to understand the ones that cannot be helped to make sure everybody else can be helped before they go into a state they cannot be helped.
What am I reading.
I need a power-up for osu!, but to not invade Russia in the wintertime.
Opposing viewpointsB1rd wrote:
What am I reading.
An argument against yours. Looks like you are so far in one side that you can't comprehend anything else and dismiss it as ridiculous. Try to understand that paying that programs are needed to ensure that society doesn't destroy itself due to the lack of ability to sustain itself. There is also a similarity between developed countries helping third world countries and the government's helping its poor. It ensures the societal development where otherwise there would not be any.B1rd wrote:
What am I reading.
Rest assured, if I could understand what your argument was I would respond to it. But when you start talking about unspecified diseases infecting the population, "they who cannot be helped", I have no idea what you're talking about, much less how it is related to welfare. And now you're accusing me of partisan bias out of nowhere.
I'm not sure if B1rd is actually retarded or if he's just been indoctrinated
So I guess this is where actual s m a r t discussions take place
No, it's just slightly less cancer than the rest of this godforsaken website, nazis notwithstanding.
This is a place where there are periods of inactivity, posting shit that is neither funny nor interesting, until someone says something someone else doesn't like. From there, an argument ensues for a few days until it settles down, and the cycle starts all over again.
lmaoJordan wrote:
what is it that other Muslims don't like about the Muslims in Albania
Think about Protestants vs Catholics, but they're Muslims.
A bit like England vs America then?B1rd wrote:
Think about Protestants vs Catholics, but they're Muslims.
I mean, that's never exploded into actual conflict in the past 100 years, unlike, say, in Northern Ireland or the Iran-Iraq WarKisses wrote:
A bit like England vs America then?B1rd wrote:
Think about Protestants vs Catholics, but they're Muslims.
not evenSerraionga wrote:
So I guess this is where actual s m a r t discussions take place
When ppl stop getting salty over politics then they can start.Serraionga wrote:
So I guess this is where actual s m a r t discussions take place
didnt have much time to throw this one together but i think it illustrates my point
Much better than Stefan threads though
You are not trying hard enough to understand.B1rd wrote:
Rest assured, if I could understand what your argument was I would respond to it. But when you start talking about unspecified diseases infecting the population, "they who cannot be helped", I have no idea what you're talking about, much less how it is related to welfare. And now you're accusing me of partisan bias out of nowhere.
In the simplest terms I can possible spell out for you:
SUPPOSE THE POOR DONT HAVE WELFARE AND NEED TO PAY FOR A HEALTH CHECK
THEN THE POOR DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO CHECK THEIR OWN HEALTH STATUS
UNCHECKED HEALTH STATUS OF POPULATION = RISK OF SPREAD OF CONTAGIOUS DISEASE
I don't need to name this "unspecified" disease. Make the name up your self. I don't need to supply real world evidence to back this claim. It's just plain logic and common sense.. If you don't get neither of that, then nothing can be explained to you unless it aligns with your own opinions.
Can we like, ban Dawnsday from posting here?
nothing
I'm pressing charges for a memeing offence, violating the fair use of OT material, and impersonating Blitzfrog. See you in court.Dawnsday wrote:
what have i done this time mom
What's that got to do with me...abraker wrote:
I'm pressing charges for a memeing offence, violating the fair use of OT material, and impersonating Blitzfrog. See you in court.Dawnsday wrote:
what have i done this time mom
If you talk about a "disease", you're talking about a singular disease. Fix your grammar before telling me I'm not trying hard enough to understand you.
Absolutely not before we ban b1rd. Dawnsday is ok in my bookKisses wrote:
Can we like, ban Dawnsday from posting here?
HOW am i copying blitzfrog i was shitposting before this clown had even contemplated coming into existence
Everything has got to do with you as of lateBlitzfrog wrote:
What's that got to do with me...abraker wrote:
I'm pressing charges for a memeing offence, violating the fair use of OT material, and impersonating Blitzfrog. See you in court.
so i have a doctor's appointment and a list of stuff i'm going to complain about
for example, why do i get cancer everyday????
for example, why do i get cancer everyday????
Because you're not married to Blitzfrog.Hika wrote:
so i have a doctor's appointment and a list of stuff i'm going to complain about
for example, why do i get cancer everyday????
no homo
nah that's ok... that would give me more cancer
Why is people having diseases that are hard to personally detect the biggest issue you see with the lack of welfare, wouldn't people suffering from diseases and not being able to pay for treatment be a bigger concern for you? Regardless of your grammatical errors, I'd have an easier time understanding your position if it made logical sense to me.abraker wrote:
In the simplest terms I can possible spell out for you:
SUPPOSE THE POOR DONT HAVE WELFARE AND NEED TO PAY FOR A HEALTH CHECK
THEN THE POOR DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO CHECK THEIR OWN HEALTH STATUS
UNCHECKED HEALTH STATUS OF POPULATION = RISK OF SPREAD OF CONTAGIOUS DISEASE
I don't need to name this "unspecified" disease. Make the name up your self. I don't need to supply real world evidence to back this claim. It's just plain logic and common sense.. If you don't get neither of that, then nothing can be explained to you unless it aligns with your own opinions.
But anyway, I'm not gonna waste my time trying to respond to your arguments if you're gonna constantly throw insults and not take the time to make your posts readable.
Diseases that are hard to detect can be an issue, but a more common issue is that it may be that they don't get treatment for it, and as a result, spread detectable diseases further to others. If the severity of the detectable diseases is high, then you get an epidemic and a sick population consisting of not just the poor. Also depending on the severity of the diseases, deaths can occur in not just the poor population because of this.B1rd wrote:
Why is people having diseases that are hard to personally detect the biggest issue you see with the lack of welfare, wouldn't people suffering from diseases and not being able to pay for treatment be a bigger concern for you?
It's in my best interest to supply the poor with welfare because of this and my well-being. If someone poor at public transport caught some disease they never got treatment for, then I am likely to get it too because I ride public transport every weekday. I don't need a sick week because someone is developing a 40c fever on the train.
The act of people suffering from diseases is a topic going from moral standpoint and not from an objective standpoint. Why I should care about their suffering should be a topic to discuss separate from why welfare should not exist because it's then a question about why I think it should exist and not why it should exist.
funny, coming from someone who's been in a permanent state of "fallen"Blitzfrog wrote:
Abraker has fallen
firstofallBlitzfrog wrote:
Abraker has fallen
hehe xdRaspberriel wrote:
funny, coming from someone who's been in a permanent state of "fallen"Blitzfrog wrote:
Abraker has fallen
What do you mean, he's literally one of only two good posters here.Blitzfrog wrote:
Abraker has fallen
I don't really get what you're saying about morality vs objectivism. Isn't one of the primary roles of systems of governance, which is what we're talking about, to reduce human suffering? If not, I don't understand by what standards the best type of government is judged. It seems you're talking about your own personal interests being the most important factor. If that's the case, then the best type of government would be a dictatorship with you at the top, if we're not considering other people.abraker wrote:
Diseases that are hard to detect can be an issue, but a more common issue is that it may be that they don't get treatment for it, and as a result, spread detectable diseases further to others. If the severity of the detectable diseases is high, then you get an epidemic and a sick population consisting of not just the poor. Also depending on the severity of the diseases, deaths can occur in not just the poor population because of this.
It's in my best interest to supply the poor with welfare because of this and my well-being. If someone poor at public transport caught some disease they never got treatment for, then I am likely to get it too because I ride public transport every weekday. I don't need a sick week because someone is developing a 40c fever on the train.
The act of people suffering from diseases is a topic going from moral standpoint and not from an objective standpoint. Why I should care about their suffering should be a topic to discuss separate from why welfare should not exist because it's then a question about why I think it should exist and not why it should exist.
Now about welfare. Note, that I never actually said that welfare should be abolished, although I am warm to that idea. Now, the primary error in your logic is assuming that without welfare, the people who are dependent on welfare with income would suddenly have no income without it. As I have already shown, the majority of welfare recipients are capable of working, and if they didn't get welfare, they could do so. Of course, as I've mentioned, reducing barriers to employment should go along with this to ensure that people can be employed. So then, these people would be able to afford health insurance.
What about the people who can't work because of a disability, temporary life circumstances, et cetera? Private charities can fill this role, and are much better and more efficient that government programs in general, for the same free-market principles in which private organisations usually can do things better than the government. For example, 70% of government welfare spending goes towards administration spending, compared with 10% for private charity. And of course, private charities are much better at helping people with the specific help they need, and much better at administering help to people who genuinely need it, compared with government bureaucracy.
And another point: in a welfare state, what is stopping every person from a poorer country immigrating to your country for free welfare? We've seen many examples of these economic migrants in Europe and America. Simply, the welfare state necessitates strong border control. And since liberals do not want the latter, well, that is a recipe for disaster. As we have seen in Sweden. http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/05/sweden ... migration/
And the final point that I'd like to make, is that welfare creates a welfare dependent population within a nation. It allows people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford kids, to have kids, which then grow up in low-income areas, destined to the same fate as their parent(s). Well, you might tell me, people would just have kids regardless and then their kids would starve. Well, I'll play the same logic card as you did; to say that people's actions are not affected by their economic circumstances and opportunities is ridiculous. No doubt it would happen, but I doubt as many teens would have a baby without a guaranteed welfare check from the government. The reduction of welfare would encourage only economically stable married couples to have kids, which is a better thing for society.
Stefan has all the power to lock every OT thread, but he is not using it to invade Russia in the wintertime.
good 4 him
good 4 him
My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, 'If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.'. Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- 'Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because B1rd's posts gave me cancer anyway.
ftfyKappa FrankerZ wrote:
My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, 'If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.'. Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- 'Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, becauseB1rdBlitzfrog's posts gave me cancer anyway.
Smoking feels like you fc'd a chart and got a top 10 in your pp and a huge rank boost.
I like the taste and the smell and the feeling and I reccomend it.
I'll eat enough fast food to die from a heart attack first.
I like the taste and the smell and the feeling and I reccomend it.
I'll eat enough fast food to die from a heart attack first.
How can cancer get cancer? This is the next philosophical question we must engage on.
By getting B1rd, the cancer of cancerB1rd wrote:
How can cancer get cancer? This is the next philosophical question we must engage on.
I am saying that I am approaching this argument purely with an objective view point. This is to put morality out of the question since morality is subjective, and therefore, cannot be proven. Objectively, my survival comes first before others. That doesn't mean I will enjoy an all powerful leader in a system.B1rd wrote:
I don't really get what you're saying about morality vs objectivism. Isn't one of the primary roles of systems of governance, which is what we're talking about, to reduce human suffering? If not, I don't understand by what standards the best type of government is judged. It seems you're talking about your own personal interests being the most important factor. If that's the case, then the best type of government would be a dictatorship with you at the top, if we're not considering other people.
I agree. People who have an established income can have welfare. For people that do not, let's see the next point.B1rd wrote:
Now, the primary error in your logic is assuming that without welfare, the people who are dependent on welfare with income would suddenly have no income without it. As I have already shown, the majority of welfare recipients are capable of working, and if they didn't get welfare, they could do so. Of course, as I've mentioned, reducing barriers to employment should go along with this to ensure that people can be employed. So then, these people would be able to afford health insurance.
Ok I have to agree with this too. It does look like a viable solution. However, it is not a better option during an economic depression. Since it's privatized, it depends on philanthropy which in turn depends on the economy. Not saying that it's a bad option altogether, but offering the flexibility for government social programs to make up what private charities cannot during time of crisis might be better than staying with just privatized charities.B1rd wrote:
What about the people who can't work because of a disability, temporary life circumstances, et cetera? Private charities can fill this role, and are much better and more efficient that government programs in general, for the same free-market principles in which private organisations usually can do things better than the government. For example, 70% of government welfare spending goes towards administration spending, compared with 10% for private charity. And of course, private charities are much better at helping people with the specific help they need, and much better at administering help to people who genuinely need it, compared with government bureaucracy.
Ok, I agree with point too.B1rd wrote:
And another point: in a welfare state, what is stopping every person from a poorer country immigrating to your country for free welfare? We've seen many examples of these economic migrants in Europe and America. Simply, the welfare state necessitates strong border control. And since liberals do not want the latter, well, that is a recipe for disaster. As we have seen in Sweden. http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/05/sweden ... migration/
While this point applies to couples that think things through, this doesn't prevents couples from having children in unfavorable economic conditions. How do you apply this point for those cases where children were born due couples carelessly having unprotected sex?B1rd wrote:
And the final point that I'd like to make, is that welfare creates a welfare dependent population within a nation. It allows people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford kids, to have kids, which then grow up in low-income areas, destined to the same fate as their parent(s). Well, you might tell me, people would just have kids regardless and then their kids would starve. Well, I'll play the same logic card as you did; to say that people's actions are not affected by their economic circumstances is ridiculous. No doubt it would happen, but I doubt as many teens would have a baby without a guaranteed welfare check from the government. The reduction of welfare would encourage only economically stable married couples to have kids, which is a better thing for society.
Kappa FrankerZ wrote:
My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, 'If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.'. Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- 'Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because B1rd's posts gave me cancer anyway.
Im dedicating a post to how dreadful mental health support is in England.
Seriously it's actually appalling. Carry on.
Seriously it's actually appalling. Carry on.
Please don't make this into a meme.ryyushi wrote:
Stop trying to share your sick addiction on OT. Share it with me instead. I'm boring because I smoke reds thoughYuudachi-kun wrote:
Smoking feels like you fc'd a chart and got a top 10 in your pp and a huge rank boost.
I like the taste and the smell and the feeling and I reccomend it.
I'll eat enough fast food to die from a heart attack first.
2017 and people smoke cigs over joints
enjoy ur cancer and smelling like a walking tumour
enjoy ur cancer and smelling like a walking tumour
I stopped smoking almost 2 years ago.. I'm soooo proud.
Yeah you'd smell like a tumor except that deodorants nd showers are a thinglol wrote:
2017 and people smoke cigs over joints
enjoy ur cancer and smelling like a walking tumour
Foxtrot wrote:
Stop trying to share your sick addiction on OT. Share it with me instead. I'm boring because I smoke reds thoughYuudachi-kun wrote:
Smoking feels like you fc'd a chart and got a top 10 in your pp and a huge rank boost.
I like the taste and the smell and the feeling and I reccomend it.
I'll eat enough fast food to die from a heart attack first.
You dont like menthol
Angry faic
Awww I thought you tried it once half year ago and hated it. Rip lungs I guess :\Yuudachi-kun wrote:
Smoking feels like you fc'd a chart and got a top 10 in your pp and a huge rank boost.
I like the taste and the smell and the feeling and I reccomend it.
I'll eat enough fast food to die from a heart attack first.
Then I had an orgasm in my mouth
And I'm done
Cyka blyat
Why would you smoke when whisky tastes better, and doesn't give you cancer.
because if you smoke the good stuff it tastes good and you get a highB1rd wrote:
Why would you smoke when whisky tastes better, and doesn't give you cancer.
lollol wrote:
because if you smoke the good stuff it tastes good and you get a highB1rd wrote:
Why would you smoke when whisky tastes better, and doesn't give you cancer.
>whiskyB1rd wrote:
Why would you smoke when whisky tastes better, and doesn't give you cancer.
>good taste
lol the pretentiousness. Whiskey tastes like nothing. Literal shit brewed distilled bottled and sold for absurd prices. This wannabe drink that only caters for c00l guy adults should be banned/
You're pretentious for making a post about pretentious people
i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age
You're just butthurt alcohol in haram in your country :^)Erlkonig wrote:
>whisky
>good taste
lol the pretentiousness. Whiskey tastes like nothing. Literal shit brewed distilled bottled and sold for absurd prices. This wannabe drink that only caters for c00l guy adults should be banned/
Though, I can forgive people for not liking stuff like Jack Daniels, which is pretty disgusting. But good single malt whiskys taste amazing.
I feel like my meme was underappreciated :/
Indeed, wishing death upon hundreds of millions of people for their personal choices that don't affect others is a perfectly reasonable opinion.silmarilen wrote:
i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age