Homeless people.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-05-2013, 10:32 AM
RE: Homeless people.
The guy from that video above this last skyscraper of a post DOES ask for money, but he doesn't look like someone who would berate anybody for not giving it. Twice, he could have gone off to sell (be "successful enough" for a short time) those rings worth thousands of dollars each, but didn't. Kept the wedding ring in case the woman came back, and actually took the SB ring back to it's owner. This guy is, or at least comes across as, someone who doesn't deserve you shitting on him.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2013, 10:41 AM
RE: Homeless people.
(11-05-2013 10:32 AM)TheGulegon Wrote:  The guy from that video above this last skyscraper of a post DOES ask for money, but he doesn't look like someone who would berate anybody for not giving it. Twice, he could have gone off to sell (be "successful enough" for a short time) those rings worth thousands of dollars each, but didn't. Kept the wedding ring in case the woman came back, and actually took the SB ring back to it's owner. This guy is, or at least comes across as, someone who doesn't deserve you shitting on him.

I'm not shitting on him.
I'm just not emptying my wallet either.

I know the story in the video. How do you know he didn't sell it because it would look suspicious if a homeless man was to pawn an expensive ring? He may have thought he'd end up in jail?

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2013, 10:57 AM
RE: Homeless people.
(11-05-2013 10:41 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(11-05-2013 10:32 AM)TheGulegon Wrote:  The guy from that video above this last skyscraper of a post DOES ask for money, but he doesn't look like someone who would berate anybody for not giving it. Twice, he could have gone off to sell (be "successful enough" for a short time) those rings worth thousands of dollars each, but didn't. Kept the wedding ring in case the woman came back, and actually took the SB ring back to it's owner. This guy is, or at least comes across as, someone who doesn't deserve you shitting on him.

I'm not shitting on him.
I'm just not emptying my wallet either.

I know the story in the video. How do you know he didn't sell it because it would look suspicious if a homeless man was to pawn an expensive ring? He may have thought he'd end up in jail?

How do you know the guy asking you for money is actually homeless, instead of being perfectly successful, but simply good at annoying the hell out of you?





Big GrinTongueBig GrinTongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2013, 11:38 AM
RE: Homeless people.
(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:I'm gonna kinda guess that every reason may be different and some of them may not fit into the "boxes" of help that the world offers them.

Everybody fits in the boxes of the world helping them. BUT there is a point where one must help others, help them. And tell me, they wont let the state or some charity, hell even a church?? help them, yet they're more then happy to ask ME for money?
Fuck off. If these people wanted to be off the street all the resources are there to help them and they would be.

Stop making excuses for them Bemore. You're enabling them.

Enablement. That is a valid point.

The statement - "Everybody fits in the boxes of the world helping them." - is somewhat generalized and can not possibly meet the very complex, needs of each individual. So, the question comes down to: "How can I meet this individual's needs?". One can not, when many have tried and obviously failed.

So Muffs, I do understand you throwing up your hands and saying, "I won't give you money today, homeless person, I gave at the office.". However, I am glad that you(and others) do every single day, see the failure of the many who have tried. I think it continues to remind you (and others) that everyone's needs are not being met. You may not be enabling them but maybe at least, you aren't ignoring them.

I can only hope you and others have thought it through this far and will strive for a solution. I'd hate to think we're simply making this another absolution, so that we may all feel justified by not working on this issue.

I think people often do ignore the homeless, handing them change as if tossing bread to ducks. So yes, I get it. I'm not being sarcastic here, either. To me, if people could actually see it this way, maybe they will see that a real solution which meets the needs of every individual, is the only way to resolve this issue and that ignoring them isn't going to make them go away.

If there is no solution... well, there will always be that standoff; you(and others) with the coins vs. a homeless person.

Something for all of us to work on, huh? Wink

***
Just to clarify - when I say and others - I do include myself.

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
11-05-2013, 12:23 PM (This post was last modified: 11-05-2013 12:27 PM by bemore.)
RE: Homeless people.
(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I suspect you just don't like my way of thinking because it's right and it makes you feel insecure that your opinions have been for so long, wrong, and much like a religious person in denial about there being no god, you can't simply admit the truth that you are wrong and I am right.

Says the dude who writes that he hates homeless people and doesnt seem to get one reply that even comes close to agreeing with what you say in its entirety.

So is your statement aimed at just me or are you going to paint everybody with the same stick... does the above statement of what you said to me apply to everybody else and if it doesn't... who in particular does it not apply to??

(I doubt you will answer that question... blissfully ignore it and I will go onto my next.... after all, all the people who disagree with you or have other more liberal opinions are all wrong and your the only person who is right..... right?)

Homeless people are not just new to our lifetimes muffs, so would you care to explain why it is that there has always been this "fringe" part of society??

Also why is it that we have such help in place yet.... it doesnt help everybody and we still have homeless people??? Also how can you speak on behalf of others and answer this question (you cant) when, when I mention speaking to homeless people your response is a childish "ew"... so in fact you really have no idea yourself do you apart from your own experiences that you dealt with in your own way that you are trying to transfer onto others, when muffs, life is not that simple youth.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bemore's post
11-05-2013, 12:24 PM
RE: Homeless people.
(11-05-2013 11:38 AM)kim Wrote:  Enablement. That is a valid point.

The statement - "Everybody fits in the boxes of the world helping them." - is somewhat generalized and can not possibly meet the very complex, needs of each individual. So, the question comes down to: "How can I meet this individual's needs?". One can not, when many have tried and obviously failed.

So Muffs, I do understand you throwing up your hands and saying, "I won't give you money today, homeless person, I gave at the office.". However, I am glad that you(and others) do every single day, see the failure of the many who have tried. I think it continues to remind you (and others) that everyone's needs are not being met. You may not be enabling them but maybe at least, you aren't ignoring them.

I can only hope you and others have thought it through this far and will strive for a solution. I'd hate to think we're simply making this another absolution, so that we may all feel justified by not working on this issue.

I think people often do ignore the homeless, handing them change as if tossing bread to ducks. So yes, I get it. I'm not being sarcastic here, either. To me, if people could actually see it this way, maybe they will see that a real solution which meets the needs of every individual, is the only way to resolve this issue and that ignoring them isn't going to make them go away.

If there is no solution... well, there will always be that standoff; you(and others) with the coins vs. a homeless person.

Something for all of us to work on, huh? Wink

***
Just to clarify - when I say and others - I do include myself.

You just made a great argument against the welfare state. Owing to its anonymity, the state cannot discern what sort of help individuals need and the result is that a huge number of people are not helped by the welfare state at all... rather, they are harmed by its funding of their self destructive habits.

When the modern US welfare state began, there were about 1.5 million people on welfare and about 170 million people in the country. Today, those numbers are ~50 million and ~300 million.

Even a leftist economist like Muffs can read those numbers and see the disparity. Tongue

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like bbeljefe's post
11-05-2013, 06:47 PM
RE: Homeless people.
(Sorry if any of this doesn't make sense. I gotta go and don't have time to proofread.)

earmuffs, I'd like to preface this post with a personal request. Please read this post without assuming what emotions I feel while writing any portion of it. Please read it without assuming I think anything other than specifically what I write. And please read it in your own calm state.

I don't think of this discussion as a competitive debate/argument, but rather a cooperative effort to understand and be understood. Everyone, please join me in that mindset so that we all can avoid speaking past each other, disrespecting each other, etc.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  It's like you read what I say but then choice to respond with something completely irrational to what I just said.

I don't see what part of "the state will sort it all out for you, all you have to do is sit on your ass at home and watch TV instead of sitting on your ass on the streets annoying the shit out of me" you don't understand.

bbeljefe did not respond with something completely irrational to what you said, but rather with something additional to what you said, and if anything, your response supports what bbeljefe said.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  How can you fuck up having everything paid for for you??? It's physically impossible unless you take that money and spend it on something like ohh let's say, booze and drugs!

When you say everything will be paid for them, and that the state will sort it all out for them, do you mean individuals working for the state look into the individual client's situation, such as debts, health issues, threats, mental health issues, etc and then determine what the individual needs? Or does the state work with a predefined set of needs applied to the whole group?

And you mentioned the state pays the landlord for them, but is that also the case for health care, food, and other needs?

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  You're not getting it.
It's not about success, I accept that these people fail at life and will likely always fail at life..

The only objective failure at life is death, all else is opinoin. I thought it clear that by "success", bbeljefe only referred to what you refer to as "not fucking up having everything paid for you".

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Yes it is, it truly really is.
They get X amount of dollars from the government.
Food and board costs Y.
X > Y
Somewhere along the road Z (booze and drugs) comes into play.
Y + Z > X
You can clearly see where the problem is.

This supports the notion that it is not an economic issue. You point out that everything is economically available to them, yet they fail to take advantage of the economy in a way that keeps them off the streets. That's not an issue with the economy, a.k.a. an economic issue, but an issue with the individual making particular choices, thus it's a mental/emotional issue.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  And don't give me this "they're incapable", the state caters to those people. The state will pay your rent for you (give the money to the landlord instead of you).

Paying the landlord for space and keeping the individual in that space are two very different things, and I imagine the latter is up to the individual rather than the state. Is that true? If so, there certainly is a question of their capability, though which specific ability or abilities are relevant to that capability is another pertinent question.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Most of them are homeless year round.

Not the ones here.

Do you know for a fact how many homeless are "here"? Do you know for a fact how many are not homeless at the cold parts of the year? If the answer to either of these is "no", then you don't know if most of them are only homeless part of the year.

Regardless of whether that's true, do you know for a fact what reasons people have for not being homeless only part of the year? It may be more complicated than just the fact that they wish to escape the cold. For example, they perhaps would be off the streets all year if they believed they could manage that.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote: she takes the day's leftover food to them

Ahh, they get the scraps after you've had your fill.
At least I'm upfront about being a bad Christian towards them.

bbeljefe was talking about his wife, not himself, and at no point did he say their efforts were "good" or "not bad", so your implication that bbeljefe is not being upfront seems quite naive.And if you didn't notice, he said they also take hot stews and blankets to the homeless but did not say those are scraps.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Two points.
1) You're mistaking your homeless for my homeless.
2) You're making excuses for them.

1) I can't speak for what bbeljefe juxtaposes on your homeless due to what he sees of his, but it appears to me he just shared his experiences to suggest possibilities for your homeless that you might not have considered.
2) What excuses is he making for them? I haven't noticed bbeljefe making any claim about who is to blame for their actions, nor any justification for their actions. Did I miss something, or are you perceiving excuses that aren't there?

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Your a hypocrite muffs.
No I'm not.
His views are based on what? Nothing.

My views are based on the past 3 years experience and my observations, especially of different times of the day and year regarding the homeless as well as my interaction with them.

Whether you're a bigot based on nothing or a bigot based on much, you're still a bigot. If you don't know that every homeless person is homeless for the reasons you assume they are, but you allow yourself to hate the homeless group, anyway, then you are engaged in bigotry.

While you observe at different times of day and year, they may be doing different things at those times, as well. Are there not massive gaps in your awareness of these individuals and thus the whole group?

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Pretty much like everyone, including homeless people.

Wrong, I don't use the hand I am dealt as an excuse to end up homeless.

Homelessness is different from sexuality, of course. Whether or not anyone becomes homeless depends not only on what happens inside them, but also on what interaction-shaping decisions they've made throughout their entire lives.

If we can't entirely blame the hand homeless folks were dealt for first making them homeless, because we can see they made past choices which clearly worked against them staying in a home, (such as drug use, extravagant purchases, risky investing, etc), then we also can't entirely blame some homeless for making themselves homeless, because other peoples' past choices structuring the government, economy, etc had influence on the events which they could not counteract in a way that allowed them to stay in homes.

That seems all people are trying to get you to acknowledge when they are making "excuses". Obviously, there are some people who are homeless, because they want to be, but some people do everything they can to not become homeless before they end up homeless due largely to things entirely outside their control, anyway.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  The state provides X amount of dollars to people that meet the requirements.
For someone who is without job that is a sizable amount. Not large, but certainly enough to live on.
The state offers help to those with mental illness's and without family or without family who actually a damn.

What are the requirements?
Is that enough to live on throughout New Zealand and in every neighborhood or your city, or just in certain places? What specifically does "living on" consist of?
What kind of help does the state offer the mentally ill, the neglected, or the alone?

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Your welcome homeless people, my tax payer money is paying for that.

Do you know exactly where your taxes go? I ask, because in the Pacific Northwest U.S., there is a big debate about whether people who ride bicycles pay their "fair share" for the roads. Many automobile drivers are angry that cyclists don't pay gas taxes and don't have to pay for bicycle registration, but counties are painting bicycle lanes on the streets and creating other bicycle infrastructure, anyway. That cyclists don't pay their fair share has become a talking point in both political and casual conversation - it's become trite. Meanwhile, gas taxes and automobile registration pay for less than 5% of road costs, with most the funding coming from property and federal taxes.

I only bring that up, because here in the states, few of us actually know much about what our taxes pay for. There's a common disconnect between citizens and their government, but citizens like to gripe, anyway, about their taxes paying for this and that. When all you say is "my tax payer money is paying for that", the impression I get is that you don't actually know much about your tax money distribution, either.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  OH, and that's not counting charities like the Salvation Army...

Money is finite. State funds are finite. Salvation Army's funds are finite. The same goes for each source's labor. Maybe not all the homeless can be helped through just one organization, or even two.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  So what rational conclusion can one gather from this?
Well, either these people have homes and no job (thus time on their hands) and so sit on the street begging for money.
Or
They don't have homes because the money that would be for housing is spent on other things, such as booze and drugs, and so they sit on the street and beg.

What is your standard for "rational"? In my opinion, something isn't rational if it isn't true. Do all the homeless fit into one of the two options you've laid out? Do all of them even fit into the two? If the answer to either of my questions is "no", then I would say your proposal is not rational.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Either outcome does not warrant in any way shape or form my empathy.

Outcomes don't warrant empathy. An individual's mind warrants that individual's empathy. None of us are telling you that you have to empathize or that there is any objective reason for you to empathize, so it seems you're speaking to a non-existent issue with that statement.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I'm not the mean one here, they're the parasites leeching off society because they want to get high as a kite.

People can be mean in response to others being mean. It happens often. I'm not saying that's the case with you, but am just saying whether or not you are mean is independent of them being parasites. Only you can tell if you are mean. I accept you saying you're not mean, but I hope you're completely honest with yourself.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I'd much rather my money go towards ambulance services then some drunks addiction.

I have no disagreement with this, and I don't think anybody does. I don't think anybody has been referring to giving money when they've mentioned "empathy".

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  You're over complicating things. Cut the world salad.

What specific things have I over complicated and how?

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  And I'm not saying you shouldn't emphasize with them. You can toss your money away, I don't care.

I was not talking at all about what I "should/shouldn't" do. I was asking you sincere questions, not rhetorical ones. I don't expect you to answer them, but I would still appreciate your answers if you're inclined that way.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:[sarcasm]And here I was starting to think you might have actually not been "insignificant".[/sarcasm]

Is this why replied to me? Because I called you insignificant?

No, I replied to you, because I had the impression you were ignoring many details crucial to your characterizations of the homeless group. I brought up the talk from the "purpose" thread, because I thought you may have possibly had inflated sense of self which may have been influencing you toward hatred, because I've generally found that intense feelings have diminished when I've recognized how I am no different from what I dislike in others.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Just accept it, your life is insignificant. You have yet to do anything of significant value with it and so it shall remain insignificant until it does.

That's quite an ignorant statement, because I faced such an idea many years ago. My view is that everything in existence is "significant" because it exists, and possibly "insignificant" because we humans have desire, so rather than the question being "am I significant or insignificant?", the question is "how significant/insignificant am I to whom?" The answer always changes, so it's one I don't care about.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  ie: My life now is insignificant, but at least I have plans to do significant things.

This is what I care about. I care that I am doing things I value. In that sense, you could say my plans are the same as yours.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  It's different because I'm not on the street begging for money you idiot...
Seriously, go back and reread.

I was well aware that difference existed. Sorry I asked the wrong question. What I meant was why are you against receiving help from people who fund the state, but you are not against receiving help from the state? I asked, because the money comes from potentially the same source, either way. The primary difference is that you don't have a choice of paying the state, but you do have a choice of paying the homeless. Does not your preference they not be on the street begging come primarily from the fact that some expect you to pay and yell at you when you don't?

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:"Annoyance" is the result of cooperative effort composed of what others do and how you perceive their actions. By saying they "annoy" you, you're not only describing their actions but also blaming them for your own thinking.

Again with the world play. Blah blah blah blah blah.

So are you trying to say that what you find annoying is annoying to all and is annoying independently of your preferences?

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Your doubt/your belief in what they will "always" do is irrelevant to what determines their actions. Conclusive predictions of human behavior are naive notions.

Also, the notion of "eye sore" is subjective, just like the notion that discrimination on the basis of aesthetics is "shallow".

blah blah blah blah blah.

[sarcasm]That's quite the excuse you have for ignoring your faith in what will happen throughout the indefinite future.[/sarcasm]

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I doubt it. They dislike what I say because they believe I should be more empathic towards those less fortunate then I.

Where has anybody mentioned a comparison strictly between you and homeless people? Where has anybody said you "should" be more empathic?

Yes, they may dislike what you say, but I believe that's simply because they think you are misjudging many of the homeless group. Maybe that's incorrect, though. Neither you nor I can say with certainty, so perhaps questions about their perspectives would be more applicable than claims?

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  My opinion is "ignorant" to them because they believe it to be baseless because the end result (me hating them) is not in line with what they would consider socially acceptable emotions.

I can tell you that your opinion appears "ignorant" to me, because I don't think you can possibly understand every why of every situation of every homeless person you hate. My view that your opinion is "ignorant" has nothing to do with socially acceptable emotions, and instead pertains only to whether or not you are ignoring any details of the homeless peoples' situations which would critically influence your opinion.

Maybe everyone else who finds your opinion "ignorant" is coming from a similar perspective. You won't learn why they find it "ignorant" by telling me why they do, though.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Let me be more specific when I say homeless in the context of this thread.

NZ homeless, begging on the streets.

happy?

Not once was I under the impression you were talking about anybody other than NZ homeless begging on the streets.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  In which case I am not stereotyping, I am accurately portraying.

It's possible to portray a stereotype. Since NZ homeless begging on the streets is a group consisting of individual human beings, I doubt it is a unanimous group, and thus still don't believe you aren't stereotyping.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Do you know that your taxes are already paying for everything they need, or is that just your unfounded belief?

I know because I've been in that system.

Yes, I know you've been in that system, because you said so earlier in the thread, but your needs are not necessarily the same as the needs of others, so if your experience is your only evidence that your tax dollars pay for everything they need, then I think your evidence is insufficient, and thus your belief unfounded.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:While I appreciate your honesty, I take your response as indication you are generally ignorant and narcissistic.

Oh son... you call me narcissistic like it's suppose to be offensive. LOL.

Not at all. I had no intent to offend you. I don't care to ever offend anybody. I mentioned narcissism thinking it may have been the most influential factor in your possible ignorance. I mentioned narcissism in case you were against narcissism, and could just use an outside perspective to give you context for your own self perception relative to that characteristic.

(11-05-2013 09:45 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:No matter how capable or incapable anyone is of anything, we all depend more on a foundation of things given us than on the things we've created for ourselves.

What a load of shit (with some truth).
My foundations are shit to say the least. Again, everything I own I worked myself to buy. We are what we make ourselves to be.

I come from a farm in one of the least populated states in the US. As early as age six I recall preferring being in school, because it meant I didn't have to work for my father. I started making money when I started working for other people at age 13, picking rocks out of fields. I had to buy the things I wanted with the money I made. After secondary school I paid for my college career by working as a welder. Since then I have been on federal food stamps when I was out of work and savings, but in no other way have I asked others for help. I bring this up only to make it clear to you that I understand what it's like to work for everything you own. I come from a culture where people are otherwise extremely ashamed.

That said, I didn't create the jobs I had. I didn't teach myself everything I needed to know in order to just function in society, let alone perform every job duty I've been given. I didn't create the economy which made money useful in the first place. I didn't create the political freedom which allows me to buy anything. I didn't create the infrastructure which allows for the transportation of goods I bought. I didn't create the goods I bought. We all indirectly depend on much more than we create.

What we are is not entirely up to our choice. The Bene Gesserit of Dune may be able to influence internal organs and chemicals, but we can't. We're born into this world having no control over what we are. We make choices which influence what we are, but of all the factors influencing what we are, the choices we make are a minority. If you don't believe that's true, then I request that you explain how it is not.

(11-05-2013 10:32 AM)TheGulegon Wrote:  The guy from that video above this last skyscraper of a post

Let's please not disrespect earmuffs by characterizing his post as a "skyscraper". I consider it disrespectful, because the size of his post is irrelevant anything else we're discussing.

(11-05-2013 12:24 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  You just made a great argument against the welfare state. Owing to its anonymity, the state cannot discern what sort of help individuals need and the result is that a huge number of people are not helped by the welfare state at all... rather, they are harmed by its funding of their self destructive habits.

When the modern US welfare state began, there were about 1.5 million people on welfare and about 170 million people in the country. Today, those numbers are ~50 million and ~300 million.

Even a leftist economist like Muffs can read those numbers and see the disparity. Tongue

That's not an argument against the welfare state in general, but rather against the particular welfare states we've experienced with such conditions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2013, 08:23 PM
RE: Homeless people.
(11-05-2013 06:47 PM)fat cat Wrote:  That's not an argument against the welfare state in general, but rather against the particular welfare states we've experienced with such conditions.

That's correct. It's an argument from effect.

But this isn't the thread where I lay out an argument from morality against the entire state. Tongue

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: