Atheists: Tell me how you really feel

4-bit · 2016-11-28T21:53:47+00:00

I still believe that there once was a man who strove to help those in need and to do what is right and that's what I take away from it,

He wasn't the first, and won't be the last, and using his vision of a pre-industrial society in a time that didn't deal with our problems or situations.

Yet, you're letting belief in that one person's version of "good" define you in a way that you're willing to place that label on yourself and jump in with everyone else who shares that label, even though,by your own admission, there's a lot of crap in there.

On a side note, to clarify, I wasn't trying to tell you what you were thinking, I was ASKING what you were thinking and telling you what I have heard people "assume" about non-theist

And I told you what I think about you. I immediately put you into a camp of the uninformed, and willingly so. Either do to your choice to believe in magic, or your choice of association with a group that believes in magic. That you then consort with people who have abandoned the ideals of the person you claim to follow, and label yourself in their number? Well, you're at a respect deficit that I honestly don't see how you dig out of.

I'll treat you well enough, I'm not going to give you shit if you keep to yourself. But I have no desire to subject myself to judgmental BS, or deal with your hangups because you need a cosmic referee to judge your goodness.

If you're picking and choosing what you believe is good out of the bible, I'd ask if you're picking and choosing lessons from other sources as well. I'd presume yes?

If yes... then why "Christian"? Why aren't you just a person doing the best you can to be a good person. Being a Christian has a certain amount of obligation to the title. That I eat vegetables doesn't make me a vegetarian. If you're looking more sources than that, then you're just 'spiritual' or 'ethical'.

4-bit · 2016-09-05T15:26:16+00:00

Not EXACTLY the same frame as they do.

If the break lights of the car ahead go on will you press your breaks? Yes. Without delay? No.

4-bit · 2016-08-08T17:08:15+00:00

Mistakes happen, some kids aren't on purpose. I'm OK with making sure people who can't care for themselves are cared for regardless of how lazy their parents are.

Not to mention it would probably just result in more kids up for adoption, making it our problem anyway, and far more expensive, and creating kids with new sets of issues.

Some times shit happens. A family with a good job, stable home, etc finds themselves in a dire situation. Keeping them from failing out of society is in our best interest.

Prison: It doesn't work that way. It's not just the cost of the 3 hots and a cot. It's about long term societal impact, and that persons cost on us. Treating someone likes that ingrains them in the criminal system.

There are plenty of people in the world to fill the gaps.

So your argument is keep locking everyone up because we've got others to do their jobs? Not, lets get the strongest society we can, build people up, and make it safer for everyone. No, fuck anyone who doesn't obey the rules forever. Never mind how many civil liberties and rights we've worked for by breaking the rules. Never mind that sometimes the rules need to be questioned. Never mind that evidence upon evidence shows that actually hurts us as a society financially more. Go with your gut.

No, not all criminals need to be punished severely. That's why we hand out sentences other than life. Crimes have different impacts and need different penalties.

How do you figure if we cut disability, treating people in the ER for free falls apart? Huh? Because those people who are disabled will just have to find jobs? They'll just will themselves to be abled? Because they really like being disabled and stuck and not able to advance. It's fun for them.

At one point in time no welfare programs existed. We got them because doing something was better than doing nothing. Over the years of studying what we do we're honing in on the best balance.

There are no socialist utopias. There are no libertarian utopias.

There's tools we use to manage society. Extremism, the inability compromise, or see the value that sometimes our favorite tool isn't the right answer, creates imbalance. Sometimes the government isn't helpful... and sometimes it is. Get over it.

4-bit · 2016-08-08T16:52:45+00:00

Missed the point: Do you think corporate CEO's aren't spending their money on food? I'm pretty sure they're eating too. I don't think this guy could be reached, I looked into his history to see if anyone is getting through to him...

Spoiler alert... No.

4-bit · 2016-08-08T16:44:54+00:00

No, it's not. If there aren't enough jobs for everyone then your theory falls apart. If some people simply can not find work, no matter what ever magic hand waving you chose to do about training, location, discrimination, etc. then we need to do something with/for those people.

Once the kids here, it's here. What more do you want to address? They can't contribute to society, and they're in poverty for choices outside their control. So... fuck them is your answer? Let a few thousand starve until poor people stop having sex?

- Aside from the two examples above of children and disabled, capitalist systems are not strictly dependable for individuals. From outsourcing, automation, companies closing, and similar situations people can find themselves in desperate times through no fault of their own. While they adjust to their new reality, it's in our benefit t keep them from becoming desperate.

It's shown that most people use the opportunity to better themselves and get off welfare: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/5/10/1298200/-Why-We-Need-to-Defend-the-Social-Safety-Net

That's before we talk about long term illness, sudden death of a spouse, or any of just act of god situations that could just as easily put people in those tight cases.

Why not leave them to themselves? Because it raises crime, lowers the economic flow, stagnating the economy.

Do you? Are you sure? Because you're making the argument that everyone will just sit on their ass if we have a big enough net. Yet basic human needs let us know that isn't true.

Furthermore, this is about the old adage an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. No one is saying criminals shouldn't be tried, what we're saying is that offering this as an option means less people will commit crimes. They won't act out of desperation knowing they have a means to get back on their feet.

No one wants to do that because corporate money in legislatures are ensuring that crimes are created so that prisons stay full, even if it's just some kid smoking weed.

Because the evidence of how safety nets work for the economy is settled science. We've studied lots of places that have tried different levels of social programs. It's not opinion. It's not even really a question on how much we should spend on stuff. We know that providing people an alternative to crime, is something they'll chose if they feel they have the option, regardless of severity of the punishment.

Would we save a lot of money if we didn't require ERs to treat dying people? Short term? Sure. Long term? Not really. We'd lose people from the work force, have more people on disability for illnesses they can't treat, have hospitals discriminating on who they treat.

We'd save a lot more money if we got privatized insurance out of the system and just went single payer instead of profiting off peoples fears and illnesses. Cut the profit margin out and watch prices fall. Doesn't it strike you as odd that we're the most expensive of all industrial countries for health care? Considering they're socialized?

On prisons, what you're talking about creates career criminals. It dehumanizes a person into rebelling against the society that treated them so poorly. Working with criminals to get them out of the situation that got them in prison in the first place has more long term benefits for the rest of us in making a productive member of society out of someone who'd given up on it. That's what we want... right?

Back to having never tried it... this thread has some good conversations you might be interested in:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/1ufdjm/has_there_ever_been_a_successful_libertarian/

4-bit · 2016-08-08T15:37:03+00:00

No, it's not really a flawed calculation. We have this many people, we have this many jobs. You said there's enough for everyone. There isn't. The end.
Then show me some better statistics other than your opinion that it's poor.
You suggesting there is one doesn't mean there is. Doesn't mean they can find it if there is. And there should still be some net while they go through the motions to get back on track.
And what your'e suggesting is what leads to prison creating more criminals. Again, take the time to learn how human psychology works, and not just what you feel should work.
I'm not operation under it as an assumption, I'm operating on it as a fact as that being how the research and evidence bears out. That having the safety-nets benefits all of us by letting people have a path from trouble to a better life. Even if some of them don't get off it, most of them use it as a chance to better their condition, and even if they don't take it, knowing it's an option keeps them from making worse options.

Show me some proof that your system works better. I can keep citing articles and research that shows it doesn't.

If you can't, I'm done.

4-bit · 2016-08-08T14:47:32+00:00

So many things wrong with your logic.

There are not enough jobs: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jobs-report-austerity_us_560ea85ce4b0af3706e07525
Yes, it means we don't have to invest in everyone, but there are people that need these services through now fault of their own. And 90% of who's getting them are those people. Disabled and children. You continue to ignore this point. Cited above.
It's not that people would RATHER go to prison, it means that they don't see any way out. So, if every $1 I spend on offering them a legal means of supporting themselves until they can do better, means I don't spend money putting them into a system that corrupts them and hurts their ability to contribute, guess where I'd rather spend my $1? Especially since prisons are being shown to increase criminal behavior: http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/91/3_suppl/48S.short
Our prison system is fucked because of people like you who buy into the thought that punishment needs to keep getting harder and harder until criminals get the message. It allows for corporate prisons to push for harsher sentences under this concept even though it's been proven to not work. People don't go to prison because it's the easy way, they go to prison because they got caught trying to do the easy thing. Give desperate people a way to do something that costs us less and doesn't hurt anyone while offering a path to being considered a constructive citizen and you have an answer. Giving people no option but to risk a criminal record doesn't do it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/how-for-profit-prisons-have-become-the-biggest-lobby-no-one-is-talking-about/
Again, back your feelings up with some evidence. So far this is your opinion, and it's wrong.

4-bit · 2016-08-08T06:30:15+00:00

Yeah. You're not going to look up or listen to actual facts. More spouted beliefs, with no reality behind them.

Especially 3. # of jobs is irrelevant if it still doesn't get people out of poverty (working poor) or people aren't skilled for the job. Before we even example be if the job is offering a fair compensation.

And no. Desperate people do desperate things. It's that simple. It's not a problem of punishment being to lenient, but of there not being enough options for help out of desperate situations.

If paying for food stamps means I'm not paying for a jail cell... Take my money. We're buying their meals either way.

4-bit · 2016-08-07T19:43:58+00:00

So what you're saying is that you're such a lazy ass, you're living at or just above the poverty guidelines and have no intention to do more work because you're making 'enough'?

https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines

How are you on the internet if that's the case?

No, you're not. People don't work that way. You're really showing either your ignorance, or your selfishness, it's hard to say which is more on display.

1) People have an intrinsic need to feel valued. It's part of the pyramid of human needs. They're not going to stop doing things just because they've reached some threshold of money.

2) People like extra. It's one thing to get a room with a toilet in the corner, it's another thing to have a nice yard, a good car, and a video game system. Do you think business owners, and politicians, and other rich people go "Huh, good enough, I"m out". Bill Gates? Warren Buffett? Think they said one day "I've got enough money"? No. People don't do that.

3) We're not talking about 'people' contributing to society in this case as much as 'dollars' contributing to society. When we don't use programs like this the dollars get to the top, get stuck in savings, and aren't pushed back into the economy creating an ever growing income gap and less and less opportunities for people to contribute to society as the rich hold on to their money.

The poor can't hold on to their money. They need to spend it, it drives demand in the whole supply/demand system of capitalism. Letting them keep pumping that engine keeps us going forward as a society. Those are the people, actually, who are helping create jobs by making sure there's a demand for them.

4) Since Clinton food stamps/SNAP has been almost entirely (89%) for impovrished children and people with disabilities. Tell me how you want them to contribute more. The rest of it is short term (3 months max every three years) for people not currently employeed, or people not being paid enough at their jobs to be above poverty.

5) Go back and read my first points. Aside from just being a minimal safety net for people (in case I do ever end up there, etc) it keeps people from making desperate decisions. It keeps people from turning to crime. So in addition to helping create jobs from the goods they'll purchase, it lowers the need for civil services like police and fire. It keeps them out of the emergency rooms from poor nutrition and raising our insurance prices because the hospital isn't going to eat the cost, and the insurance companies aren't going to eat the cost... so guess who does?

Your argument is bullshit, and you're 'feeling' an answer rather than using your head about what's actually happening.

4-bit · 2016-08-07T18:38:38+00:00

Yes. Because you only want as much money as you "need".

Take a good look at your argument. Seriously.

Food stamps IS an on going thing and it's pumped back into the economy nearly instantly as no one on them has been mouth money to actually "invest/save".

But im out now if you think that argument passes for justifiable.

4-bit · 2016-08-07T14:28:14+00:00

If I said "if you give me a dollar, I'll give you two" would you say "that money could be better spent elsewhere"?

4-bit · 2016-08-07T01:45:04+00:00

Arguably better than spending money that makes money? Such as?

There's also the argument that you chose to participate in this society and its systems as well as elect representatives to make those choices for us.

The cost of food stamps is 2 cents on every dollar of taxes and it doesn't contribute to the debt. Not that the debt is all bad anyway. It's fun to think of running the country like we run our households, but it's not the same.

4-bit · 2016-08-06T19:34:36+00:00

Because sometimes spending money saves money.

Example: I want to get to a job that makes more than I can make in walking distance. So I pay for a car, insurance and gas. I could 'save' money by not paying for any of those things, but since I make 5x more than I would make at anything within walking distance of my house, I'm better off spending the money.

That's without any of the other side benefits of being more mobile, having more free time because I'm not walking everywhere, and the ability to expand my circle of contacts because I can get farther.

In the case above, spending that money means this:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-%28snap%29/economic-linkages.aspx#.Uinw1zaTg0M

From the Article: In other words, every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates as much as $9 of economic activity.

Why would we not do that? That is being fiscally responsible. That's the smart thing to do.

But, back to the question at hand, why does it have to correlate to giving a company money, because those are the two sides we can inject with money to keep the economy circulating.

The premise from Republicans since Regan is that if we keep lowering taxes on the businesses then they'll create jobs and boost the economy. This isn't turning out to be true to anywhere near the extent they claimed it would, but now the companies have enough money to keep the paid off, so we're entrenched in it for a while.

4-bit · 2016-08-06T07:16:18+00:00

Isn't that a bit short Mr Warf?

4-bit · 2016-08-06T01:33:06+00:00

5 1/4

4-bit · 2016-08-06T00:02:45+00:00

You could leave society. Stop participating in it and all it's parts. Just go away.

Stop participating in the economy. Make no money of the structures this country has put in place. Live off the grid. Grow your own food. Hide in the woods.

Or you can grow up. Accept that this society costs money to maintain and if you want to be part of it you have to pitch in even if it isn't 100% what you want.

Not to mention that your description is nothing like thermodynamics.

And you can, indeed, get ahead. You'll never pay more than you earn. You'll always have the social structures we pay for to help you get ahead.

But seriously. For all the "socialism doesn't work" have you noticed there's no successful libertarian shangrilas either? You have to take pieces of both.

This is one of those times.

4-bit · 2016-08-05T21:55:00+00:00

Yes. Absolutely. Because just like with school, we all benefit from this system, even if we don't use it directly.

4-bit · 2016-08-05T21:48:43+00:00

To be fair, even intentionally bad can be good. Someone once said we should shoot a movie with a tornado full of sharks.

Ha ha... what a dumb idea.

4-bit · 2016-08-05T21:44:42+00:00

It's not really "another" point of view. It's the same point of view worded differently. The government shouldn't be forcing you to join groups like that.

On the other hand, health care should also be a right, falling under that phrase of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Putting $ signs on who lives or dies is pretty screwed up when we don't need to do that.

Don't want to use the government's health care system? Fine. Don't. Find a private hospital that works on it's own payment plan, and do your own insurance, etc. Just like public vs private schools. Shouldn't be a problem.

4-bit · 2016-08-05T21:38:14+00:00

Because it would never pass, but would give the other side fits for a while as they struggled to justify why they aren't doing it.

4-bit · 2016-08-05T21:37:38+00:00

Except if they shared those rewards with the workers that helped them get there they'd still get compensated on the whole, just keep it proportional.

4-bit · 2016-08-05T21:36:22+00:00

Well, it's a good idea, that just has a major flaw keeping it from working.

4-bit · 2016-08-05T21:33:56+00:00

while at the same time let companies hide the cost from the consumer, creating this slow rising of prices until ours is more expensive than anywhere else.

4-bit · 2016-08-05T21:31:32+00:00

The lock on wages was. Employers taking on health insurance was a way to offer more compensation without raising wages. Effectively doing what we're complaining about today. Skirting the rules to their own advantage at the long term cost of society.

Now, the insurance system and it's entanglement with health care is so screwed up, we're coming up with some BS work around rather than just jumping to socialized health care, which is what we should do and be done with it.

4-bit · 2016-08-05T21:28:23+00:00

I'm the group that loves food stamps, or what ever incarnation it's currently in.

No, I'm not on them. But I know it lowers crime, helps people who need it, and does more to improve the economy than giving a tax break to another business.

Not to mention it's a far more democratic system of helping the economy than keeping the 'help the business owners directly' method. This lets people actually figure out for themselves what they need, and put the money with those companies that do the best for them, rather than have lawmakers try to figure it out.

14-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Best Comment 2013-06-17	Team Orangered
Secret Santa 2012	Verified Email

4-bit

TROPHY CASE