havok579257 Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305388669' post='2241351'] Actually, that's not the argument. The argument is that the government does not have the right to take money from one group to give it to another. [/quote] does the government not have a responsibility to give everyone life, liberty and a chance at the pursut of happiness? well without government assiatnce, some people would not be alive. so how is the government supposed to give the people a chance at life?
Winchester Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1305395244' post='2241402'] To be practical is not morally acceptable? Wow... explains so much. [/quote] Once again, your limited knowledge betrays you. You could argue that you're referring to pragmatism distinct from philosophical pragmatism. That your pragmatism is of the political variety (although that's also limited and practicality in politics would demand doing something other than reading Mother Jones and watching MSNBC, repeating poorly garnered statistics and then having an aneurysm about people not wanting you running their personal lives). So, I'll pretend you made that argument and say "Okay, then join us in the Austrian school and the Libertarian Party."
Winchester Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305395874' post='2241406'] does the government not have a responsibility to give everyone life, liberty and a chance at the pursut of happiness? well without government assiatnce, some people would not be alive. so how is the government supposed to give the people a chance at life? [/quote] I have the right to keep and bear arms. Does that mean the government must provide me with weapons through a government program?
Mr.Cat Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305396026' post='2241407']Once again, your limited knowledge betrays you. You could argue that you're referring to pragmatism distinct from philosophical pragmatism. That your pragmatism is of the political variety (although that's also limited and practicality in politics would demand doing something other than reading Mother Jones and watching MSNBC, repeating poorly garnered statistics and then having an aneurysm about people not wanting you running their personal lives). So, I'll pretend you made that argument and say "Okay, then join us in the Austrian school and the Libertarian Party."[/quote]Was there a reply in this garbled nonsense? I didn't see one. But I am sorry you reject pragmatism: "[i]A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.[/i]" Why do you reject pragmatism, because an ideology tells you to... Genius. Edited May 14, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat
Don John of Austria Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305333578' post='2241110'] I'm curious as to what you guys would do if one day you left for the office and then didn't come home? That happened to me. One day you are employed, healthy, active, happy, and the next day you are permanently and totally disabled, unable to move, unable to work, with no one who can take care of you or give a beaver dam. Catholic Charities could offer no help at all. What should I have done besides turning to the government for help? When I hurt my back, I was released from the hospital, and was taken by ambulance and dropped at a hotel that catered to drug users and prostitutes. I didn't move for 7 weeks. [/quote] Catherine \,what they are saying is not that in our current situation there are adequate charitible options, they are saying adequate charitable options are not available BECAUSE of our current government enforced welfare state.
Winchester Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1305396180' post='2241409'] Was there a reply in this garbled nonsense? I didn't see one. [/quote] I accept your surrender.
Don John of Austria Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305396150' post='2241408'] I have the right to keep and bear arms. Does that mean the government must provide me with weapons through a government program? [/quote] Well if we are going that route I want an HK-G3
Mr.Cat Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305396219' post='2241411']I accept your surrender.[/quote]You couldn't handle my surrender. But not even close...
Don John of Austria Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305395874' post='2241406'] does the government not have a responsibility to give everyone life, liberty and a chance at the pursut of happiness? well without government assiatnce, some people would not be alive. so how is the government supposed to give the people a chance at life? [/quote] No the government does not give life, they have aresponsability to make sure all havea chance at life, not to make sure everyone stays alive... Are you arguing we should have government funded organ transplants, howabout laws regulating what you eat, when you drive, exactly how many drinks you can have, or all the other things that might "keep you alive". That sounds like slavery to me.
Winchester Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305396264' post='2241412'] Well if we are going that route I want an HK-G3 [/quote] Clearly we must give it to you because "right" and "entitlement" are synonyms, just like "pragmatism" only exists as a lame political ideology based on a poor understanding of the consequences of the [i]philosophy [/i]of pragmatism.
Winchester Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1305396180' post='2241409'] Was there a reply in this garbled nonsense? I didn't see one. But I am sorry you reject pragmatism: "[i]A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.[/i]" Why do you reject pragmatism, because an ideology tells you to... Genius. [/quote] Is that summation what you based your decision to subscribe to pragmatic philosophy on? It would be practical to kill the weak. It is practical to kill drug dealers. [s]It is practical to indefinitely imprison many types of criminals.[/s] Morally unacceptable, as I said. Morality is often impractical. Actually, on further thought, it's impractical to indefinitely imprison people. So we should just kill those whose rehabilitation would be more costly than their execution. Edited May 14, 2011 by Winchester
Don John of Austria Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305396441' post='2241416'] Clearly we must give it to you because "right" and "entitlement" are synonyms, just like "pragmatism" only exists as a lame political ideology based on a poor understanding of the consequences of the [i]philosophy [/i]of pragmatism. [/quote] Wellget to it Cap'n. WHERE IS MY G3!
Winchester Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305397157' post='2241425'] Wellget to it Cap'n. WHERE IS MY G3! [/quote] We don't supply weapons. You'll need to contact your congressperson. I can point you in the direction to obtain a lower for an AR-15 for 60 dollars and then an upper at your convenience for 400-650. There is even a piston-driven upper and I believe some options for 7.62x39. The lower requires an FFL, but after that, you can get an upper sent right to your house. Edited May 14, 2011 by Winchester
havok579257 Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305396150' post='2241408'] I have the right to keep and bear arms. Does that mean the government must provide me with weapons through a government program? [/quote] completely different things. you never answered my question. does the government have the responsibility to its citizens to provide them with a chance for life and how do they do that for someone who would die without assistance to live?
Mr.Cat Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305396803' post='2241420']Is that summation what you based your decision to subscribe to pragmatic philosophy on? It would be practical to kill the weak. It is practical to kill drug dealers. [s]It is practical to indefinitely imprison many types of criminals.[/s] Morally unacceptable, as I said. Morality is often impractical. Actually, on further thought, it's impractical to indefinitely imprison people. So we should just kill those whose rehabilitation would be more costly than their execution.[/quote]Dear Glen Beck, just because someone subscribes to an idea, doesn't mean they subscribe to every possible ramification of that idea, nor does it mean that their responsible for every conceivable negative consequence of an idea. But we were discussing economics, not morals, not that it's important. I am going to take my leave from this discussion, I tire of the lack of sincerity. I apologize and please pardon me. Edited May 14, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat
Era Might Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1305392872' post='2241378'] The poor have some advocates, the wealthy have the rest. But there is no one defending or promoting the middle class. [/quote] Politicians are ALWAYS talking about The Middle Class like it's some sacred caste. Frankly, I wish they would shut up about it. The Middle Class is what makes our silly system work. Get enough people who aren't destitute but who aren't wealthy, and keep them pacified. The middle class is the politician's dream: they're in the middle, not rocking the boat. One might argue that the middle class is what we aspire to as a society. Maybe, but I have no interest in being part of "The Middle Class" (although I admit it's an easier road in life). At least the poor have a pot of gold at the end of the tunnel. The pot of gold for The Middle Class is behind an HD TV screen. And, of course, the poor in this country aspire to be middle class. They buy into The Middle Class even more than The Middle Class does. That's unfortunate. Edited May 14, 2011 by Era Might
havok579257 Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305396419' post='2241415'] No the government does not give life, they have aresponsability to make sure all havea chance at life, not to make sure everyone stays alive... Are you arguing we should have government funded organ transplants, howabout laws regulating what you eat, when you drive, exactly how many drinks you can have, or all the other things that might "keep you alive". That sounds like slavery to me. [/quote] your going off in a different direction. does the government have a responsibility to all its citizens to provide them with a chance for life? does the government have a responsibility to someone who is born with some medical problem and requires a ventilator to continue breathing? does the government have a responsibility to this person to provide for them something they can't provide for themselfs or should the government just let the person/child die?
Winchester Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1305397707' post='2241435'] Dear Glen Beck, just because someone subscribes to an idea, doesn't mean they subscribe to every possible ramification of that idea, nor does it mean that their responsible for every conceivable negative consequence of an idea. But we were discussing economics, not morals, not that it's important. I am going to take my leave from this discussion, I tire of the lack of sincerity. I apologize and please pardon me. [/quote] You mean you didn't understand the ramifications of your idea and instead of thinking of them when challenged chose to insult me. Glenn Beck is a Statist. Admittedly, less of one than you, but since you have possibly even less grasp of what he says than you have of pragmatism in either its philosophical or political form, I don't expect you to know that. PS: I know you read this.
Winchester Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305397579' post='2241433'] completely different things. you never answered my question. does the government have the responsibility to its citizens to provide them with a chance for life and how do they do that for someone who would die without assistance to live? [/quote] They are not completely different. They are human rights. And I did answer.
Mr.Cat Posted May 14, 2011 Posted May 14, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305398009' post='2241443']You mean you didn't understand the ramifications of your idea and instead of thinking of them when challenged chose to insult me.[/quote]Wouldn't arresting a drug dealer have the same desired effect, with less effort, seems more pragmatic to me. So no... you didn't challenge me.[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305398009' post='2241443']Glenn Beck is a Statist. Admittedly, less of one than you, but since you have possibly even less grasp of what he says than you have of pragmatism in either its philosophical or political form, I don't expect you to know that.[/quote]This of course isn't insulting.[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305398009' post='2241443']PS: I know you read this.[/quote]I'm glad we are off topic, but I am leaving this topic, there is no amount of horseplay that can attract me back to the topic.
Recommended Posts