It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Brother's keeper eh ?

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Well sorry don't get my morality from government nor other people.

Never have,never will.




posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hefficide
 





See the rhetoric falls apart when dissected and the knee-jerk terminology is fully in play.


I agree the rhetoric of brother's keeper does fall apart when it is dissected and the tear jerking emotional 'argument's' have been exposed for what they truly are.
edit on 22-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


If the concept of need leads you to internally marginalize by insulating with terminologies such as "tear jerking emotional arguments", I'd suggest that your struggle is not one of politics, but is one of personal conscience.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by Hefficide
 


"Tough love" and the other rhetoric you are talking about is a way for many people to reconcile to opposing ideologies. They want to be "good" guys either because they are Christians or because they like the image yet, on the other hand, they still want to hold on to everything they got and have "moral" justifications for not lifting a finger to help their fellow humans.

Less and less people are buying it. It's almost like a wink-wink-nudge-nudge type of inside joke now days. I don't think anybody really believes it.


What is not being bought here is throwing someone else's money at people, and think they care.

If that is what it means to be someone keeper I pass.

I agree less, and less people are buying what government 'benevolence' proponents are saying, and the inside joke there is making people become slaves to the state for their existence.

edit on 22-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





If the concept of need leads you to internally marginalize by insulating with terminologies such as "tear jerking emotional arguments", I'd suggest that your struggle is not one of politics, but is one of personal conscience.


My conscience is clear thanks though for trying to spin ' I'm a bad person' though because I don't believe as some people in here do.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 



I would never argue that there aren't people who are lying and stealing from these programs. Just as I would say there is a lot of questionable accounting that allows businesses to cheat the government out of money they owe. The question I asked is entirely relevant to what is being thrown around and perfectly, not over, simplifies the question to bring it into the correct context. We should work to improve the system.

it is oversimplified because it forces an "either, or" response.

the purpose of my post was to show that some people abuse welfare systems, and others don't. you, however, classify everyone on government programs into one group.

i call those that abuse the system moochers, and those that use the system wisely and correctly people who are down on their luck.

i think businesses who pay taxes correctly (let's be honest, giving the government more money only leads to more waste) are smart, and i think those that abuse loopholes are greedy sods.

so you see that i have at least 4 conflicting opinions on what you narrowed down to two groups. if we stick to your defined groups (i.e businesses, and those on welfare) i would contradict myself; holding businesses to both be acting in a good way in regards to taxes and a bad way. for welfare programs a similar problem comes up, where they would be both responsible and lazy.

oversimplified.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by Hefficide
 


"Tough love" and the other rhetoric you are talking about is a way for many people to reconcile to opposing ideologies. They want to be "good" guys either because they are Christians or because they like the image yet, on the other hand, they still want to hold on to everything they got and have "moral" justifications for not lifting a finger to help their fellow humans.

Less and less people are buying it. It's almost like a wink-wink-nudge-nudge type of inside joke now days. I don't think anybody really believes it.


Tell what is not being bought here is throwing someone else's money at people, and think they care.

If that is what it means to be someone keeper I pass.

I agree less, and less people are buying what government 'benevolence' proponents are saying, and the inside joke there is making people become slaves to the state for their existence.


Whether you like it or not, you don't live in some Thunderdome Mad Max post-apocalyptic distopia. You pay taxes. Those taxes are like your fee to be a part of a club. You only have to pay if you are gaining from being a part of this club and therefore it's of mutual benefit to all parties. If you don't make enough money, the club pays you, if you make a lot of money, you pay the club. You can complain all you want but being a member of that club is WHY you are able to be successful.

I truly feel sad that there is not a place for people like you to go to be happy. I think you should be allowed to find some public land and create "Neotopia" where there are no taxes and social services extend no further than watching the beavers build a convenient dam. When you get caught in a bear trap and can't afford the medicine for curing the infection, we can all say "No, don't help him, this is what he would want".

Fortunately for you, the majority of us are not like you and we would help you whether you liked it or not. Not only that but, yes, we would also make our neighbors pitch in to buy your medicine, as well. We do that because there is such a thing as black and white morality that's obvious to everybody but the people who it inconveniences.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hefficide
 





If the concept of need leads you to internally marginalize by insulating with terminologies such as "tear jerking emotional arguments", I'd suggest that your struggle is not one of politics, but is one of personal conscience.


My conscience is clear thanks though for trying to spin ' I'm a bad person' though because I don't believe as some people in here do.


You completely misunderstood. Suggesting that you may be having an internal conflict between your conscience and the extremist rhetoric that you've become involved with does not at all infer you are a bad person - actually it infers exactly the opposite.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Sorry I live in a constitutional republic were taxation is uniform throughout this land, where there was specific limitations of taxation ad libitum.

The fitth amendment is cyrstal clear :



The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Pretty much say my money is my money government and others who claim to be their brother's keeper keep their damn hands off.

Whether THEY like that or not.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





You completely misunderstood. Suggesting that you may be having an internal conflict between your conscience and the extremist rhetoric that you've become involved with does not at all infer you are a bad person - actually it infers exactly the opposite.


Nope.

LOL 'my extremist rhetoric'.


Don't drone me bro.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Then we will change the laws or the definitions of things until we get what is needed.

You are going contribute one way or another. Throw up your hands an whine the whole time, but when you see the ultimate perfection of this system and the lives that it improves and enriches you'll come around.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Could we simplify such a question any more and still provide all the possible considerations you just expressed?

Is that not perfection?



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by neo96
 


Then we will change the laws or the definitions of things until we get what is needed.

You are going contribute one way or another. Throw up your hands an whine the whole time, but when you see the ultimate perfection of this system and the lives that it improves and enriches you'll come around.


Molon Labe

Second verse same as the first verse with the third verse ruling in favor.

Majority rule:



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Its an inevitable product of critical thinking

You cant expect than more half the country to be ignorant and religious for ever.
edit on 22-8-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Sorry I live in a constitutional republic were taxation is uniform throughout this land, where there was specific limitations of taxation ad libitum.

The fitth amendment is cyrstal clear :



The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Pretty much say my money is my money government and others who claim to be their brother's keeper keep their damn hands off.

Whether THEY like that or not.


We don't have the liberty of choosing which taxes we do or do not pay. If so, I'm sure you would stop paying into anything related to humanitarianism and I would stop paying into foreign military operations. However, they would probably balance out so they just make us all pay for the same crap.

What if I choose to walk instead of drive? Then could I complain about how my taxes are used to subsidize the auto industry and pay for roads and street signs? I'm a vegetarian yet my taxes subsidize the beef industry. There are plenty of wealthy folks making cars and beef who our taxes look after that don't benefit me one bit. I still pay my taxes and I'm still happy that my taxes benefit the nation, even the aspects I don't agree with. That's what voting is for.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by neo96
 


Its an inevitable product of critical thinking

You cant expect than more half the country to be ignorant and religious for ever.
edit on 22-8-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)


True it will be a grand day indeed when that 'religious' half stops deifying the government, and those false prophets who are trying to proselytize people in to thinking they only exist to service the state under the fale pretense of playing brothers keeper.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


I don't subscribe to fascist humanitarism.

That was clear on the first page,that was clear on the second page, and it is clear on the third page. and it will be clear on the fourth page.

Why people are trying to argue I don't get my position is CLEAR AS IT GETS.

Nothing is going to change it.

Don't believe in what some people are selling, others can say the same feel free with the continued exercise in futility my opinion is not going to change.

If people are their brothers keeper they would not wait for government to do it, and it is not about money.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


We exist to serve each other, and you if don't want to then some ones going to twist your arm.

Im look forward to a world that thinks this way.
edit on 22-8-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


I think it would be more beneficial to show my fellow brother how to fish then to feed him mine everyday.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by thesaneone
 


Of course! Depends on the situation.

I am completely open to suggestions on the courses of correction and the distribution of benefits, but doing nothing is not an answer.


edit on 22-8-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Cuervo
 


I don't subscribe to fascist humanitarism.

That was clear on the first page,that was clear on the second page, and it is clear on the third page. and it will be clear on the fourth page.

Why people are trying to argue I don't get my position is CLEAR AS IT GETS.

Nothing is going to change it.

Don't believe in what some people are selling, others can say the same feel free with the continued exercise in futility my opinion is not going to change.

If people are their brothers keeper they would not wait for government to do it, and it is not about money.


Fair enough. But let me ask you why you make the distinction between your taxes paying for things that directly help you and things that don't? Do you feel you should only be paying taxes that increase your personal life's abundance directly?

It's like my earlier argument about how I pay for beef subsidies even though I don't eat beef. I pay for drone strikes over seas even though I find it disgusting. I pay for all sorts of things I don't like but others do. That's what all this boils down to. Helping others is simply one thing you don't like your taxes going to yet you expect my taxes to help you out.

Do you see what I'm saying at all? Even if I took all ethics out of the equation and I had nothing to say about your morality or compassion, I would still see this as a double standard. It boils down to you not wanting to pay for something that helps others (but not you) yet you don't mind others paying for things that you do utilize (but that others don't).

It doesn't matter why you don't like it. It seems like the whole concept of taxation itself is something you don't agree with. If that's truly the case, then I hope you find your Thunderdome fantasy one day.
edit on 22-8-2013 by Cuervo because: spellin' schmellin'



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join