PDA

View Full Version : The Debate Thread....


Xon
May 28th, 2009, 02:03 PM
Okay, so I have been participating in a debate thread, but it is only one subject. I would like to expound this to a more general thread.

Rules are as follows (I doubt everyone will stick to them though)

1: Debate can be on any subject
2: Please keep the subjects with a degree of similarity ie: science vs science, religion vs religion, and so on and so forth. (This is to keep the debate from turning into he said/she said.)
3: Please post intelligently. And although I have no power, it would be my wish that mod of this forum (a2thae I believe) would delete any post that does not pertain to this forum to keep the riff raff out.... ha ha, yeah, I know I am dreaming.
4: Flaming makes you look like an idiot, so keep it to some degree of limit
5: I can't think of any, but I will posts others if I do...

Anyway, join in...

My first subject will have to be on:

The US has a relatively small welfare system. In my opinion, I think they should eliminate it complete along with social security to reduce our national debt and let the people deal with themselves. I personally hate welfare of any kind and think that those on it need to go out and get a job or die in the streets of hunger....

Now go!

Dr Cantaloupe
May 28th, 2009, 05:51 PM
Doesn't the U.S. Constitution clearly say "to promote the general welfare..."? Obviously our founding fathers knew something. Besides what of the people who are handicapped or to old too work for a living? Are they to just starve?

Xon
May 28th, 2009, 07:44 PM
To promote General Welfare doesn't mean to provide. It just means that it is supposed to look after the good of the country as a whole.

Dr Cantaloupe
May 28th, 2009, 10:18 PM
If we eliminate welfare completely a vast majority of people in this country will die. Plain and simple. Many rely on government based systems like this one and without it they can't get along normally.

Xon
May 28th, 2009, 10:18 PM
Yeah... no offense... but survival of the strongest is what i believe....

I am a cruel heartless bitch anyway... I figure let those that are stupid, poor, hungry die naturally and thin the population...

And no, i have never had to live in the ghetto. I have worked for everything i have though.

a2thae
May 30th, 2009, 11:07 AM
Okay, so I have been participating in a debate thread, but it is only one subject. I would like to expound this to a more general thread.

Rules are as follows (I doubt everyone will stick to them though)

1: Debate can be on any subject
2: Please keep the subjects with a degree of similarity ie: science vs science, religion vs religion, and so on and so forth. (This is to keep the debate from turning into he said/she said.)
3: Please post intelligently. And although I have no power, it would be my wish that mod of this forum (a2thea I believe) would delete any post that does not pertain to this forum to keep the riff raff out.... ha ha, yeah, I know I am dreaming.
4: Flaming makes you look like an idiot, so keep it to some degree of limit
5: I can't think of any, but I will posts others if I do...

Anyway, join in...

My first subject will have to be on:

The US has a relatively small welfare system. In my opinion, I think they should eliminate it complete along with social security to reduce our national debt and let the people deal with themselves. I personally hate welfare of any kind and think that those on it need to go out and get a job or die in the streets of hunger....

Now go!

It's a2thaE damnit.

If we eliminate welfare and social security, it puts the people in awkward position. You either get money or...well...die.

So this could be a good thing, forcing people to get jobs. Or this could be a bad thing, causing people to steal to get what they need, what's to stop someone who needs money to buy food from jacking a car, selling it, or worse using to hit an old grandma walking downtown and jack her purse?

Sure the law, but I'm sure he'd rather feel the wrath of the law than die from starvation...

If that starts happening, I'm sure we'll see some vigilante justice. "Some dude with long hair wear a black sweater mugged your grandma" "Oh shit," Then you got people shooting people wearing black with long hair.

Fuck I forgot what I was getting at. Oh well, if it comes back to me, I'll post it. Eventually.

Xon
May 30th, 2009, 11:11 AM
Fixed... Didn't know you were so particular about your name... Just Kidding.

As for the welfare, re-invoking the death penalty would help a lot. Then we could get rid of a lot of people that need getting rid of. And make jail, well, worse. Make people fear it. Then you will see people getting more jobs and working harder than trying to steal.

a2thae
May 30th, 2009, 11:23 AM
Fixed... Didn't know you were so particular about your name... Just Kidding.

As for the welfare, re-invoking the death penalty would help a lot. Then we could get rid of a lot of people that need getting rid of. And make jail, well, worse. Make people fear it. Then you will see people getting more jobs and working harder than trying to steal.

Quite possibly. But stealing is much easier than getting a job. Especially if you don't get caught, and keeping this in mind, people already steal. Now there's just extra incentive to steal and not get caught.

As for the whole killing granny for her purse thing, I don't think the punishment being more severe would lessen it from happening, because you have to be desperate, and if you're desperate, you've already tried to get a job, and are unable, or the job you hold sucks horrendously.

You might have people going to jail on purpose for the food, and somewhere to sleep.

Is reducing the national debt by a small fraction worth endangering innocent people?

Xon
May 30th, 2009, 11:28 AM
Yes, because in the long run... After all the murders were hanged, and everyone died off from starvation, you would have a better country. You have to go through a little hurt to achieve anything.

a2thae
May 30th, 2009, 11:38 AM
The long run doesn't happen overnight, and possibly by the time it does it happen, the national debt could have been eliminated without having <more> innocent people become victims to the problems that taking away welfare/SS would probably cause.

So when you factor that in, and the goal stated is to eliminate the national debt, I don't think it's worth it.

Xon
May 30th, 2009, 11:40 AM
Actually, the goal is to not have a nation supported by its government. The debt is just a bonus.

a2thae
May 30th, 2009, 11:43 AM
But in the long run, how much will taking away welfare/ss contribute to that goal?

Xon
May 30th, 2009, 11:43 AM
Quite a bit seeing as it takes a huge portion of out tax money...

a2thae
May 30th, 2009, 11:58 AM
If you had to estimate it, in a fraction or something, how much would you say. Really what it comes down to is, how much money would justify the inevitable victims?

Xon
May 30th, 2009, 12:15 PM
Not that much...

a2thae
June 5th, 2009, 10:58 PM
Well this died before it started.

Buddha
June 5th, 2009, 11:34 PM
If welfare was cut crime would go up. People would be less pacified, they'd be pissed, they'd be poor, they'd be desperate. Desperate people will do unbelievable things to live, to feed their family.

As for the death penalty well, texas kills more people than any other state, texas has the most murders. What does that tell you about the effectiveness of capital punishment? Sure doesn't seem like it's a deterrent imo.

Why doesn't capital punishment work? Because to think that it might happen to you would mean you'd have to look into the future, to plan. If you had that ability you wouldn't be a criminal.

Buddha
June 5th, 2009, 11:35 PM
Actually, the goal is to not have a nation supported by its government. The debt is just a bonus.


What is your goal? Ethnic cleansing?

Xon
June 6th, 2009, 03:02 PM
Texas having more murders while still havins more death sentences carried out by punishment does not conclude that capital punishment is not effective. At least there are not as many repeats.
As for the welfare... Well hard to make an impression when almost everyone is a liberal on here so i am not going to try.

Supertastypancakes
June 6th, 2009, 03:33 PM
I agree they definitely should let people fend for themselves i mean people should at least be willing to sacrifice something to help the country in times like these and the national debt is a major problem

Buddha
June 7th, 2009, 11:12 PM
Texas having more murders while still havins more death sentences carried out by punishment does not conclude that capital punishment is not effective. At least there are not as many repeats.
As for the welfare... Well hard to make an impression when almost everyone is a liberal on here so i am not going to try.

You think I'm a liberal? What does being liberal mean to you?

Xon
June 8th, 2009, 09:27 AM
If welfare was cut crime would go up. People would be less pacified, they'd be pissed, they'd be poor, they'd be desperate. Desperate people will do unbelievable things to live, to feed their family.

As for the death penalty well, texas kills more people than any other state, texas has the most murders. What does that tell you about the effectiveness of capital punishment? Sure doesn't seem like it's a deterrent imo.

Why doesn't capital punishment work? Because to think that it might happen to you would mean you'd have to look into the future, to plan. If you had that ability you wouldn't be a criminal.

From reading the above post, I can say that you are liberal... compared to me that is. So, I have no idea where that falls on the democrat or republican line because honestly, they are all to fucking liberal, well, most are. But yes, you are liberal.

And liberal is liberal, the opposite of conservative. I don't know exactly what you are trying to ask. There are a lot of different ways to be liberal.

Resilience
June 20th, 2009, 10:09 PM
Do you believe that governments ought to provide the rights of life, liberty, and property to each and every one of their citizens, regardless of cost? (Locke)

Or, do you believe that citizens must give up some rights in order to propagate the society as a whole, decreasing the burden of the government? (Rousseau)

So, basically, I'm asking which is more important: the individual, or the society?

Let us debate this. Or discuss it.

Here's my take:

You can agree with Locke and believe society is more important as a whole. Personally, I think you have to take it in a case by case scenario and look at the society itself, such as is it a despotic government and other factors. That type of society can thrive with the majority of the people being supressed and mistreated, and in that case in my personal opinion the individual should be more important than the society until the society has made reforms to make life better for the individual.

Resilience
June 22nd, 2009, 02:43 AM
No one? fuck....

Xon
June 24th, 2009, 03:29 PM
This thread died a long time ago...

exial
June 25th, 2009, 12:11 PM
Death To Xon The Infidel!

Xon
June 25th, 2009, 02:03 PM
Aye! exial... I am the ultimate infidel.... Now bow before me...